•22ft*l'Fl1*
Clemson University
3 1604
historic structure report
9 700 816 ministrative, historical and architectural data sections
PUBLIC DOCUME,:
P D£POSaORY ITEM
NOV 1? V986
CLEMSOK
yBRAKt
SEAWALL
FORT McHENRY
NATIONAL MONUMENT AND HISTORIC SHRINE / MARYLAND
I
Digitized by the Internet Archive
in 2012 with funding from
LYRASIS Members and Sloan Foundation
http://archive.org/details/historicstructurOObrow
HISTORIC STRUCTURE REPORT
Administrative, Historical and Architectural Data Sections
Seawall
FORT MCHENRY NATIONAL MONUMENT AND HISTORIC SHRINE
Maryland
Prepared by
Sharon A. Brown
and
Susan Long
August 1986
U.S. Department of the Interior / National Park Service
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Administrative Data
Administrative Data 3
A. Location of Structure 3
B. Significance of Structure 3
C. Proposed Treatment of Structure and Justification for
Treatment 4
D. Cooperative Agreements 4
Historical Data
Preface 7
Introduction 9
II. Construction History of Fort McHenry Seawall 11
A. The Seawall is Needed and Built 1794-1829 11
1. Fort on Whetstone Point 11
2. "the ground being undermined" 12
B. Second Stage Estimates, Construction and Repair 1830-1869 19
1. Requests to Extend Seawall 19
2. The Wall is Built 20
3. Damage and Repair 24
4. Further Requests to Extend Seawall 25
C. Interim Repair and Change 1876-1893 28
1. Damage and Repair 28
2. Dry Dock and Landfill 40
3. Health Concerns 43
4. Threat to Seawall from Miners 45
D. Third Stage Construction 1894-1897 48
1 . Requests to Protect Cemetery and South Front 48
2. Building Seawall Behind Cemetery 51
3. Building Seawall on South Front 53
4. Requests to Extend Seawall on Northwest Front 55
5. Building Seawall on Northwest Front 56
E. Twentieth Century Damage and Repair 60
1 . Changes under the War Department 60
2. National Park Service Ownership 62
Chronology 67
Recommendations for Further Research 79
Illustrations 81
Appendices 139
Appendix A: Building a Sea=Wall, Contract, August 1896 140
Appendix B: Daily Journal of Operations on Fort McHenry, 1896 149
Annotated Bibliography 155
Persons Consulted During Research 159
Architectural Data
III. Existing Conditions 163
A. Historic Conditions 163
B. Existing Conditions 163
C. Present Conditions 163
Proposed Work Program 165
A. Alternative "A" - No treatment 165
B. Alternative "B" - Pump grout the wall 165
C. Alternative "C" - Place riprap in front of the wall 165
D. Alternative "D" - Preferred alternative 165
E. Multiphase Work Program 166
1 . Phase 1 166
2. Phase 2 166
3. Phase 3 166
F. Impact Analysis 167
G. Estimates 169
Illustrations 173
Appendix A: Archeological Investigations and Comments 197
Individuals and Offices Consulted 207
ILLUSTRATIONS
Historical Data
1. Plan of Fort McHenry 1803
2. HABS map of Fort McHenry 1814
3. William Tell Poussin Plan and Profile of Fort McHenry 1819
4. Historical Base Map of Fort McHenry 1819 (1942)
5. Fort McHenry 1834
6. Fort McHenry 1836
7. Plan of Exterior Barbette Battery of Fort McHenry 1870
8. 1870 Exterior Barbette Battery, Detail
9. 1878 map of proposed boundary change
10. 1870 map showing encroachment of high waterline and location of
proposed seawall
11. 1870 seawall proposal, Detail
12. Plan of Fort McHenry 1888
13. Sketch to show proposed change of wharf at Fort McHenry 1893
14. Fort McHenry, Maryland 1912
15. 1910 postcard showing seawall
16. 1920 postcard showing seawall
17. General Hospital No. 2, Fort McHenry, Maryland. Seawall 1919
18. Seawall 1919, Detail
19. Aerial view, General Hospital, No. 2, c. 1925
20. Repairs — seawall , sidewalk, etc., damaged by storm, August 23, 1933
21. 1933 seawall repair, Detail
22. Fort McHenry National Park stone walls, 1937
23. Photograph of 1938 pointing on seawall
24. Photograph of pre-1948 seawall damage
25. Photograph of pre-1948 seawall damage
26. Photograph of pre-1948 seawall damage
27. Photograph of August 1955 seawall damage from hurricane "Connie"
28. Photograph of August 1955 seawall damage from hurricane "Connie"
29. Detail of 1974 riprap protection for the seawall proposal
Architectural Data
Figures
1. Soil flushed out from behind wall and resulting void
2. Capstone displaced and toppled into harbor
3. Section of wall if protrusion is the historic configuration
4. Lower third of wall displaced due to force created by water and
plastic soil behind wall
5. Rehabilitated wall section (typ.)
Photographs
1. Station 11 + 97.05 looking south capstones displaced due to loss of soil
2. Detail of void behind wall
3. Displaced capstone toppled into harbor
4. Station 13 + 17.05--Station 13 and 84.05. Unraveled section of wall
5. Station 18 + 00. Protruding lower third of wall
6. Station 16 + 39.04 looking south. Protruding lower third of wall
7. Station 18 + 00 looking south. Protruding lower third of wall
HISTORIC STRUCTURE REPORT
Administrative Data
Seawall
FORT MCHENRY NATIONAL MONUMENT AND HISTORIC SHRINE
Maryland
Prepared by
Susan Long
I . ADMINISTRATIVE DATA
A. Location of Structure
Fort McHenry National Monument and Historic Shrine is located
in the Northwest (Inner) Harbor on Locust Point (historically known as
Whetstone Point) approximately 2-1/2 miles from downtown Baltimore. The
park is surrounded on three sides by Northwest (Inner) Harbor and
middle branch of the Patapsco River. The seawall is located on the
perimeter of the park protecting the park land from erosion by these
rivers.
B . Significance of Structure
Fort McHenry first became a public park belonging to the City
of Baltimore in 1914. In 1925 Congress enacted a law (43 Stat. 1109)
providing for the restoration of Fort McHenry and its preservation as a
national park and a national memorial shrine.
In 1933 Fort McHenry National Park was transferred from the
War Department to the Department of the Interior. In 1939 its
designation was changed from Fort McHenry National Park to Fort
McHenry National Monument and Historic Shrine. The seawall at Fort
McHenry was built in sections beginning in 1816 and finished in 1895. It
was placed on the National Register of Historic Places in 1966 and is
included in the List of Classified Structures. It has been assigned to
Management Category B, "structures that should be preserved and
maintained . "
In addition the seawall should be preserved because it is
needed to secure the site. The location of the park on Locust Point in
the Northeast (Inner) Harbor makes it susceptible to severe wave wash
from northerly and southerly storms and large swells caused by vessels
entering and leaving the habor. Thus in addition to its historic value
the seawall must be maintained to protect the park from erosion caused by
wave action .
1 . National Park Service, Cultural Resource Management Guideline ,
NPS-28, Appendix H, p. 4.
C . Proposed Treatment of Structure and Justification for Treatment
In accordance with Management Policies of the National Park
Service
A historic structure shall be preserved in its existing form on
the basis of the following criteria:
1. The structure, upon acquisition, already possesses
the integrity and authenticity required. . .
The seawall should be preserved both to retain its historic integrity and
so that it may continue its historic and necessary function of securing the
site.
D. Cooperative Agreements
There are no cooperative agreements pertaining to the seawall,
however, there are three easements that pertain to the seawall. They are
as follows:
1. In 1913 the War Department issued a permit to the U. S.
Coast Guard for use and access a 20 square foot portion of
land on which to construct a light and fog tower for Fort
McHenry channel.
2. The War Department granted an easement in 1925 to the
Mayor and City Council of Baltimore for a right-of-way
through the park to install, operate, and maintain electric
lines. These lines are submarine cables and cross under
the seawall .
3. In 1947 an easement was granted to the Mayor and City
Council of Baltimore by the Department of the Interior to
install, maintain, and service two subterranean water
mains, both of which cross under the seawall.
HISTORIC STRUCTURE REPORT
Historical Data
Seawall
FORT MCHENRY NATIONAL MONUMENT AND HISTORIC SHRINE
Maryland
Prepared by
Sharon A. Brown
"Of course now I feel like a nurse who, though at times fatigued with her
cares dislikes to give up her patient before he is cured--And then, you
know, one gets fond of what one has been caring for a long time--that is
the way I feel about Ft. McHenry."
Major Loomis L. Langdon to "My Dear Colonel"
William Craighill
May 3, 1885
PREFACE
Fort McHenry was built 1794-1802 on Whetstone Point as a defense for the
city of Baltimore, Maryland. Named for Secretary of War James McHenry,
the fort's historic significance stems from its 25-hour bombardment by the
British on September 13-14, 1814, during the War of 1812. Suffering
only minor casualties, the American forces under Major George Armistead
held the fort; Baltimore was saved and the British withdrew.
Lawyer Francis Scott Key, onboard an American vessel in Chesapeake Bay
arranging for a prisoner's release, observed the bombardment. Upon
seeing the American flag still waving over the fort after the attack, Key
was moved to write a poem, "The Star Spangled Banner." Key's words,
later set to a British tune, became the United States' National Anthem in
1931.
No more fighting occurred at the fort after 1814 but it remained a coastal
defense installation. The fort's later uses included serving as a Union
prison during the Civil War, as an immigration station, and as a World
War I Army hospital. The War Department administered the fort as a
park after 1925, before turning the site over to the National Park Service
in 1933.
Fort McHenry's seawall, built in stages after 1816, has protected
Whetstone Point (Locust Point) from the ravages of weather and tide for
169 years. Located on the park's perimeter the seawall has performed its
task well, but through the years it suffered damage from storms and
hurricanes. Both the Army and the National Park Service have
continually repaired the seawall, realizing the protection it provides the
fort. Without this protection, Whetstone Point would be significantly
altered or indeed, washed away.
INTRODUCTION
Fort McHenry National Monument and Historic Shrine was transferred to
the National Park System on August 10, 1933. The site is located in
Baltimore, Maryland, three miles from the center of town on East Fort
Avenue. The Northwest (Inner) Harbor and middle branch of the
Patapsco River surround the fort on three sides. Fort McHenry is a
National Landmark and is listed in the National Register of Historic
Places.
This historic structure report has been prepared to satisfy the research
needs as stated in the task directive approved by Mid-Atlantic Regional
Director James W. Coleman Jr., on May 27, 1983. Data from this report
will be used to plan the preservation of the seawall at the park.
Emphasis in research and writing was placed solely on specific
construction data relating to the seawall. The report is not a detailed
history of Fort McHenry as other National Park Service publications and
secondary source writings have addressed that topic.
Most of the author's research was conducted in the Historical and
Archeological Research Project (HARP) files, compiled from original
sources in 1957-1958. Arranged chronologically and by subject matter,
the 264 binders contain a wealth of information concerning Fort McHenry
from pre-1776 to 1958. Additional data to 1984 has been compiled in
binders by the park staff. The HARP collection consists not only of
photocopied materials in the binders, but maps and microfilm as well.
Limitations to efficient use of the HARP files occur because no useable
index exists, cross-references are not complete, and not all of the
material on the microfilm was copied for the binders. Additionally,
citations referring to the original sources, located in National Archives
record groups or elsewhere, are not always decipherable. Information
gaps also exist for spans of years. However, less documentation does not
necessarily mean no work was done on the seawall.
Time and money constraints limited research to the HARP files. These
HARP files provided sufficient data for a construction history of the
seawall. Research for the historical data section was conducted during
two field trips to Baltimore in January and February 1985.
The author would like to thank ex-Superintendent Juin Crosse-Barnes and
the exceptionally helpful staff at Fort McHenry. Park Technician Scott
Sheads provided an orientation to the HARP files and research assistance.
Chief of Visitor Services Terry DiMatteo and Park Ranger Bill Justice
provided additional research assistance. John McGarry lent his Fort
McHenry postcard collection and William Stokinger offered valuable ideas
concerning the seawall's construction. Supervisory Historian Ronald W.
Johnson provided counsel throughout the project. Beverly Ritchey and
Nancy Arwood typed the manuscript.
Sharon A. Brown
10
II . CONSTRUCTION HISTORY OF FORT MCHENRY SEAWALL
A. A Seawall is Needed and Built 1794-1829
1 . Fort on Whetstone Point
The United States Congress passed legislation authorizing
the construction of a fort on Whetstone Point in 1794 after the French
Revolution. Fortifications consisting of an upper and lower battery with
18 cannon existed as early as 1776 on the point, as well as a fort by
1777, but these were supplanted by new works designed by French
artillery officer Major John Jacob Ulrich Rivardi. This officer rebuilt the
batteries and built a masonry fort, but the work proceeded very slowly
throughout 1794 to 1798. The rate of construction increased in 1798 and
in the next year another French engineer, Jean Foncin, developed new
plans for the Baltimore fortifications. The extant fort, completed by
1802, is the result of Foncin's ideas and was built over remnants of the
old star fort. (See illustration 1 for plan of Fort McHenry in 1803.)
Further construction of defenses occurred after the War of
1812 was declared. These defenses included among other things brick
traverses or walls which were built in front of the fort's gateway and the
magazine. Fort McHenry's moment of glory in history came on
September 13 and 14, 1814, when its garrison withstood a British
2
bombardment lasting 25 hours. However, no seawall survived this
bombardment and shared in the fort's victory because no seawall had yet
been built. (See illustration 2 for HABS map showing Fort McHenry in
1814.)
1. U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service, "Historic
Structure Report, Fort McHenry, Historical and Architectural Data, Fort
McHenry National Monument and Historic Shrine Maryland," by Erwin N.
Thompson and Robert D. Newcomb, Denver, October 1974, pp. 9-16;
Harold Kanarek, The Mid-Atlantic Engineers : A History of the Baltimore
District , LJ.S^ Army Corps of Engineers , 1774-1974 , (Washington, D.C.:
Government Printing Office, (1979?), pp. 2-3.
2. Thompson, HSR, pp. 20-21, 26.
I I
2. "the ground being undermined "
As early as 1794 John Jacob Ulrich Rivardi commented on
the damage being done to Whetstone Point by the waters of Patapsco
River. In a letter to Maryland Governor Thomas Sin Lee on April 13
Rivardi wrote that the fort's "Salient angle B is intirely [sic] destroy'd,
the ground being undermined altogether by the water for the space of
eleven Perches and one half so that there is no possibility of making the
3
old work serve without the addition of a very expensive dam." Rivardi's
solution to the problem was to move back the salient angle on the point so
there was enough ground for gun platforms and "sufficient slope from the
outside of the battery to the water, including a Berme to prevent the
4
ground from falling down."
The War Department did not undertake the construction of
a wall until years later. The next known mention of the need for a wall
appears in May 1814. Major George Armistead, the fort's commander
during the subsequent bombardment in September, measured the distance
for a stone wall to be built in front of the lower or water battery. After
considering the quantity of stone needed, prices, labor and workmen
required, Armistead arrived at a cost estimate of $15,800. He also
thought funds could be saved by employing "Soldiers, and men under
sentence of Genl Court Martial." Armistead was prompted to make the
construction request because "the last N.E. storm has injured it [the
battery] materially."
3. "Plan of Fort McHenry," Maryland Historical Magazine 8 (1913): 287.
A perch is any defined unit of measurement. A salient angle is the
projecting angle formed by two faces of a bastion.
4. Ibid.
5. Historical and Archeological Research Project (HARP), National
Archives (NA), Record Group-107 (RG), SW, LR, Major George Armistead
to General John Armstrong, May 14, 1814.
12
The Army took no action on Armistead's request. Two
years later the problem and what to do about it was still being pondered.
On September 6, 1816, Chief Engineer Brigadier General Joseph G. Swift
asked Army Engineer Colonel Walker K. Armistead (George Armistead's
brother) to "examine the matter immediately" and to report what "kind of
quantum of Wall that would secure the point," as well as how much stone
was needed for a wall to enclose the site.
Lieutenant Thomas W. Maurice examined the "breech made
by the tides and weather on the point" and reported to Colonel Walker
Armistead that "a part of old fort Wetstone" had been washed away. In
Maurice's opinion the site required a stone wall four feet thick with a one
and a half foot foundation and six feet in height. The quantity of
building materials needed was:
Agreeable to instructions received
1900 Perches stone $3 pr P
1100 bushels lime 50 cts B
2,700 do Sand 1.50 per ton
In my opinion should be
2,500 Perches stone $3 pr P
1,000 bushels lime 50 cts
2,700 do Sand 1.50
General Swift responded to Lieutenant Maurice's estimate
by writing both Armistead brothers on November 15. Swift complained to
Walker Armistead that Maurice did not include "the price of Labour &
Materials" even "in a place where so much Stone & Brick Work is done as
in Baltimore." He suggested to Armistead that the labor be "done by
6. HARP, NA, RG-77, Buell's Collection, Engineer Historical Papers,
1800-1819, J.G. Swift to Col. W.K. Armistead, September 6, 1816.
7. HARP, NA, RG-77, Office of the Chief of Engineers (OCE), Reports,
July 1812 - October 1823, I, Thos. W. Maurice to Col. W.K. Armistead,
November 6, 1816.
is
o
Fatigues from your Brothers Command." Swift requested $4,000 be
remitted to George Armistead for the construction of both the seawall and
boundary wall, and told the fort's commander, "Your Brother will direct
the work you have undertaken." Evidently the work had already been
started because Swift complained, "It would have been better that I
should have been advised of the nature & extent of the Work before it
g
was commenced."
Swift wrote Acting Secretary of War George Graham on the
same day, apprising him of the cost of both walls, "probably" costing
$11,000. George Armistead was to attend to the work under the direction
of his engineer brother. Funds totaling $4,000 were to be remitted to
10
Armistead "immediately." In early December Swift wrote Graham again,
11
telling him the "work has been commenced. ..."
General Swift inspected the work in April 1817. He saw
the evident effect of the water upon the point and concluded "nothing but
a Sea wall can preserve it from being swept away." He then directed
that George Armistead "complete the wall in a substantial manner, its
length will be about 600 yards. ..." The estimated cost was $1,300 and
Armistead was to receive an initial remittance of $9,100 for completing the
seawall and brick enclosing wall, repairing the gun platforms, and
8. HARP, NA, RG-77, Buell's Collection, Engineer Historical Papers,
1800-1819, "Your Obt. hum. St." to Col. W.K. Armistead, November 15,
1816. The soldiers would receive an extra 15 cents per day or an "extra
gill" for working on the fortifications. A gill measured 1/4 pint of liquid,
presumably liquor.
9. HARP, NA, RG-77, Buell's Collection, Engineer Historical Papers,
1800-1819, "Your Obt. hum. Svt." to Lt. Col. Geo. Armistead,
November 15, 1816.
10. HARP, NA, RG-77, Buell's Collection, Engineer Historical Papers,
1800-1819, "Your most obedient & very humble Servant" to Geo. Graham
Esquire, November 15, 1816.
11. HARP, NA, RG-77, Buell's Collection, Engineer Historical Papers,
1800-1819, Joseph G. Swift B.G. to to George Graham, December 4, 1816.
I A
sodding. The troops were still employed to perform as much of the work
12
as practicable.
In December 1817 George Armistead reported to General
Swift the brick boundary wall's completion and that the wall's gate needed
only "a finish on the top of the Arch. ..." Armistead also commented
on the seawall:
One thousand four hundred sixty feet of the Sea wall, with
foundation of three feet below the surface and raising generally
about four feet above the surface and varying from four feet to
six in thickness, with counterforts four [?] hundred & Seventy
feet more will complete it and form a lasting barrier to the
point.
As vague as George Armistead's statement is, no other reference to the
seawall's possible completion at this time was found. Citations in the next
year refer to the need for further protection of the point and completion
of work started by George Armistead--work which most likely included
further efforts on the seawall. In January 1818 General Swift informed
Secretary of War John C. Calhoun of his orders to Armistead to "finish
the wall" commenced under Swift's directions "to secure the site of Fort
McHenry from the Effect of the tide. ..." By June 1818 Major Jacob
Hindman, who followed George Armistead as Fort McHenry's commanding
officer, received instructions to "complete the works" begun by
Armistead .
12. HARP, NA, RG-77, OCE, Reports, July 1812-October 1823, I, J.G.
Swift to George Graham, April 10, 1817; Ibid., J.G. Swift to Col. G.
Armistead, April 10, 1817.
13. HARP, NA, RG-107, OCE, SC, FT-MC, 1811-37, G. Armistead to
Genl J.G. Swift, December 31, 1817.
14. HARP, NA, RG-77, Buell's Collection, Engineer Historical Papers,
1800-1819, Inclo. 759, J.G. Swift B. Genl. to John C. Calhoun Esquire,
January 9, 1818.
15. HARP, NA, RG-107, OCE, SC, FT-MC, 1811-37, C. Vandeventer to
Col. Jacob Hindman, June 25, 1818.
15
The only description of any further work was found in a
letter Hindman wrote to Walker Armistead. A severe storm on the "4th or
5th" of December had not damaged the seawall. Hindman attributed this
to the seawall's strength which "consists of the Solid back we very
Fortunately gave it after it was raised to its Intended height. We have
filled in with Earth &c So that I think no rain will effect it." Coping was
still needed, a project the commanding officer wanted to commence the
following spring. The dimensions of stone Hindman needed for "this
purpose its permanent Security" was not less than "Eight Inches thick 2
feet in width, I doubt that in lenght [sic]." Hindman would have to
obtain the stone by contract and he hoped to pay less than $.37 per foot.
Hired laborers are mentioned here for the first time as Hindman
discharged them and planned to continue the work occasionally through
the winter with soldiers. He also requested $2,000 for the coping
v 16
work.
Armistead was "pleased" with Hindman's report of the
seawall and he hoped "it may continue to resist the effects of the Storms
and Waves." As for the coping, however, Armistead wondered if it would
be better to use granite instead of free stone for its durability, lower
price, and easy procurement from "the Susquehannah . " Hindman received
the desired $2,000. 17
No further mention of the wall appears until September
1819 when Jacob Hindman proposed a further extension of the seawall.
However, Lieutenant J. L. Smith recommended that the wall, to be
extended "from the point where the wall now building was commenced to
the wharf," not be undertaken at the present time. Writing to Colonel
Walker Armistead, Smith stated that an extension of the seawall could be
dispensed with without hazard to the site. Smith thought the "situation"
16. HARP, NA, RG-107, OCE, SC, FT-MC, 1811-37, Jb Hindman to "Sir"
[Walker Armistead], December 15, 1818.
17. HARP, NA, RWD, RG-77, OCE, SPLOE, 1812-69, W.K. Armistead
Lieut. Col. Com. Engineers to Col. J. Hindman, December 21, 1818.
16
was sheltered by the point and that a "bank forming 30 or 60 feet from
the shore" afforded a good protection. The secretary of war, who had
no objection to Hindman's request to complete the "wall now under
operation," nevertheless wanted to limit expenditures at the fort.
1 8
Hindman would be notified if a change in this status occurred.
In November 1819 Colonel Walker Armistead reported to
Acting Secretary of War Major C. Vandeventer that all repairs at Fort
McHenry commenced under George Armistead's direction and continued
19
under Jacob Hindman had been discontinued. An 1819 plan and profile
map of Fort McHenry, drawn by William Tell Poussin, clearly delineates
the seawall. It extended from Fort McHenry's southern property
boundary to the upper battery. Evidence can be seen of counterfort
construction, or buttresses on the back side of the seawall. (See
illustration 3 for Poussin 1819 plan. Illustration 4 is a 1942 historical
base map of Fort McHenry in 1819.)
Only one reference in the next decade was found to the
seawall, this being a proposal by Fort McHenry's commanding officer,
Major M.M. Payne, to add second stories to the quarters with "bricks"
obtained from "the old seawall in front of this work, or from old Fort
20
Covington, without cost to the Government. ..." The exact meaning
of this phrase is not clear. All of the documentary evidence suggests a
dry laid wall construction of stone. Topped with a capstone, the seawall
stood as a complete unit and could resist the river's erosion. Perhaps
the first seawall construction was of brick and was, at some later period,
relaid as a stone wall.
18. HARP, microfilm reel 24, J.L. Smith, Lt Corps of Engrs,
September 15, 1819; HARP, NA, RG-107, OCE, SC, FT-MC, 1811-37, J.L.
Smith to Col. Armistead, Chief Engr, September 21, 1819.
19. HARP, NA, RG-77, OCE, Reports, July 1812-October 1823, I, Col.
W.K. Armistead to Major C. Vandeventer acting Secy. of War,
November 30, 1819.
20. HARP, NA, RG-92, Office of the Quartermaster General (OQMG),
Consolidated File, M.M. Payne, Major US Arty to Major Genl T.S. Jesup,
Qr Mst Genl, June 1, 1829.
17
Only archeological investigation behind the seawall could
answer this construction question. Investigation could also possibly
identify the type and quantity of fill placed in back of the seawall which
could be related to hydrological drainage problems the fort's structures
are currently experiencing. Remnants of an older brick seawall located
behind the present stone seawall could possibly be contributing to the
drainage problems.
The scattered references to the seawall in the 1810s and
1820s imply that construction of the seawall began at least by November
1816 and was completed sometime in 1818. No sooner was this wall on the
northeasterly face of the site's waterfront completed when the need was
seen to extend the wall farther to the northwest. A shortage of funds
precluded this immediate action, and subsequent construction did not
occur until the late 1830s. George Armistead, Walker Armistead, and
Jacob Hindman were responsible for the seawall's first stage of
construction — a section which bore the brunt of the northeasterly storms.
18
B . Second Stage Estimates/ Construction and Repair 1830-1869
1 . Requests to Extend Seawall
Fort McHenry experienced extensive repair and
construction in the mid- to late 1830s. Not only were new fortifications
built, but requests to extend the seawall increased as did the realization
that the size of the Federal Government's holdings on Whetstone Point
needed to be enlarged.
Fort McHenry's commanding officer, Major Payne, submitted
an estimate in 1830 for funds required to complete the seawall, but his
1
request was denied because of insufficient funds. Eleven years had
passed since Jacob Hindman asked for the seawall's extension yet the
reason for refusal remained the same. Further seawall construction
occurred only when combined with general fort improvements and the
purchase of more acreage on the point.
The boundary of the government's ground did not extend
much farther than the limits of the fort. According to several engineers
in 1831, if an enemy siege was laid the "feebleness" of the fort and the
low nature of the ground would restrict any resistance of an attack.
Adjacent tall buildings on private land having a command of the grounds
would be kept a farther distance away if more land were purchased,
thereby reducing the capacity to "reduce" the fort with "the fire of
musketry." A recommended new boundary was a straight line across the
neck of the point, "distant from the N.W. Salient of the Fort, 300
yards." Private land within the proposal totaled 25 acres which could be
purchased for $10,000. 2
Years passed before Fort McHenry enlarged its boundaries.
Captain Henry A. Thompson, the fort's project engineer informed Chief
1. HARP, NA, RG-107, OCE, SC, FT-MC, 1811-37, M.M. Payne to Genl
Gratiot, Engineer Dept., May [?] 8, 1830; HARP, NA, RG-77, OCE, LS,
182-1872, C. Gratiot to Major M.M. Payne.
2. HARP, NA, RG-77, OCE, LR, T-1575, J.L. Totten, Engs Brevet Col
and A. Mordecai, Lt Engrs to Gratiot, July 13, 1831.
19
Engineer Charles Gratiot on September 6, 1836, of his purchase of 12
acres at $1,000 per acre. Thompson had yet to buy two other lots
farther west. The boundary was moved about 320 yards from the fort
3
walls. Two months later the purchases amounted to 17 1/2 acres, with
"8 or 10 more" being required. Land purchases in 1836 and 1837 finally
totaled about 28 acres. The extension of the seawall was necessary to
4
enclose this extra property now belonging to the government.
This enlargement of property occurred in conjunction with
a major construction program at the fort. By August 1836 the troops
temporarily left the site so construction could proceed without
5
interference. The fort was turned over to the Engineer Department.
(See illustration 6 for 1836 map of proposed work, including land
measurements. )
2. The Wall Is Built
Further construction of the seawall proceeded under this
flurry of activity. Thompson informed Gratiot on November 10 that the
portion of the seawall needing completion "on the North East part of the
Point, on which the Fort stands" would be finished by the "latter end of
January next." Thompson contracted for the necessary stone which was
to be delivered by December 15. Thompson also recommended that the
seawall "be continued to the extremity of the new purchase." He
estimated the cost at $10,000. Five days later Thompson sent Gratiot an
3. HARP, NA, RG-77, OCE, LR, T-2716, H.A. Thompson to Br. Gen.
Gratiot, September 6, 1836.
4. HARP, NA, RG-77, OCE, LR, T-2766. H.A. Thompson to Gen.
Gratiot, November 10, 1836. HARP, NA, RG-77, OCE, LR, S-1028, Hy.
A. Thompson to "My dear Captain," March 2, 1840.
5. HARP, NA, RG-77, OCE Orderly Books, R. Jones Adj. Genl, S.
Order Sr [?] 70, August 29, 1836. See Thompson, HSR, pp. 39-52 for a
history of construction at the fort from 1833-1839.
6. HARP, NA, RG-77, OCE, LR, T-2766, H.A. Thompson to Gen.
Gratiot, November 10, 1836.
20
estimate for repairs at Fort McHenry which included "the estimated
expense of building a Sea Wall to the new purchase" for $10,000.
An 1834 map of Fort McHenry reveals that the seawall had
been extended at sometime from the site of the upper battery to the
property boundary line by the wharf. (See illustration 5 for 1834 Fort
McHenry map.) No documentary evidence of this construction was found.
Perhaps the same information Thompson supplied Gratiot can be
interpreted to mean that the work needing completion on the seawall at
the "North East" part of the point consisted of continued work to extend
the seawall from the battery to the boundary. Perhaps the work required
two years to complete. Thompson then got the money to extend the
seawall (as well as build a new brick boundary wall) to the new purchase
boundary and the work began in 1836.
Captain Thompson offered the following description of the
work's progress to Chief Engineer Gratiot in October 1837:
The Sea wall of Granite from the Susquehannah, has been built
to the extent of 1300 ft exclusive of the Coping about 600 ft
remains to be finished on the North Side, & about 1000 ft on
the South side of the Peninsula in which the Fort Stands.
These walls I conceive very necessary, & when joined by the
Brick Wall now under construction across the Peninsula, all the
public lands will be completely & firmly enclosed.
Thompson also submitted the following estimate for the work:
For 2000 perches of Stone to finish the Sea
Wall to the Land recently purchased 5000.00
9
For the Coping to the Same 2880.00
7. HARP, NA, RG-107, OCE, SC , FT-MC, 1811-37, H.A. Thompson to
Genl. Gratiot, November 15, 1836.
8. HARP, NA, RG-107, OCE, SC, FT-MC, 1811-37, H.A. Thompson to
Genl. Gratiot, October 24, 1837.
9. HARP, microfilm reel 16, H.A. Thompson to Gen. Gratiot,
October 24, 1837.
21
Near the end of the year Thompson informed Gratiot of the
work remaining to be done on the seawall: "The Stone Wall about 1700
feet remaining to be built, & the Coping Stone laid on about 1200 feet."
Thompson expected to finish the work at the fort by September 30, 1838,
and that "this place" would be ready for occupation at that time. This
goal was not reached.
The seawall work did not go as planned because
"operations" did not commence until August 1 on the seawall, and only
"small progress" had been made by October 29, 1838. Thompson informed
Chief Engineer Gratiot that when the wall was finished its length would
be 2111 feet, and he described the work accomplished during the past
year:
on this [wall] there were laid this season 830 feet of Coping
Stone & 150 feet of the wall built--950 feet have been
completed , 1550 feet of wall, four feet & an [sic] half high,
have been built, exclusive of the foundation, which varies from
eighteen inches to two feet deep; thus leaving but 561 feet to
be built, of which the foundation has been laid this summer
except about 50 feet.
Several days later Captain Thompson submitted a report on
the year's work. He exclaimed, "My sea wall is completed except 600 feet
the foundations of which is laid--& then shall have about 1000 ft if coping
12
to put on which has been delivered." The end of the year "Report of
the Secretary of War" for 1838 stated that the seawall at Fort McHenry
had been "cc
1/2 feet high
had been "completed to a length of 950 feet, and 1,550 feet more are 4
M 13
10. HARP, NA, RG-107, OCE, SC, FT-MC, 1811-37, H.A. Thompson to
Gen. Gratiot, December 16, 1837.
11. HARP, NA, RG-77, OCE, LR, T-140, H.A. Thompson to Genl.
Gratiot, October 29, 1838.
12. HARP, NA, RG-77, OCE, LR, T-140, H.A. Thompson to Capt.
Smith, October 31, 1838.
13. HARP, House Doc. No. 2, 25th Congress, 3d Session, December 4,
1838, "Report of the Secretary of War," p. 155.
22
Captain Thompson's report on operations at Fort McHenry
for 1840 contained only a brief statement on the seawall work: "The
14
remaining part of the Sea Wall about 560 feet has also been finished."
In March 1840 Captain Thompson reported that the seawall,
which had been started October 1, 1836, was worked on intermittently
until August 1839. "This wall commences at the N.E. point of the
Property & runs to the Boundary Wall." The granite for the seawall cost
$9,074.82. Very little lime was used, "not exceeding $50 worth or about
120 bushels," and to the best of Thompson's recollection, not more than
30 bushels of cement was used "To the Sea Wall--the rest was used to the
revetments & Concrete mixture for foundations Say for Sea Wall $75." Of
the $8,009.67 spent on the stone mason's work at the fort, all but $500
15
went for "cutting & laying the Stone for the Sea Wall."
The second phase of the seawall's completion was finished
by 1839. Unfortunately the references to the seawall in these army
records do not clearly identify which section of the seawall was being
repaired or built. Captain Thompson's confusing references further
hinder attempts to pinpoint construction sites. Thus the records do not
reveal exactly where the seawall began or ended during any given year.
But it is possible to conclude that the seawall was extended from the
battery to the old boundary c. 1834 and that the new section of seawall,
built 1836-1839, extended from the northeast point of the old boundary
line to the new brick boundary wall on the northwest corner of the
government property. A seawall on the south side of the property would
not be built for nearly 60 years.
14. HARP, NA, RG-77, OCE, LR, T-294, H.A. Thompson to Col.
Totten, Chief Engineer, October 17, 1839. The chief engineer's postion
was now filled by Joseph G. Totten.
15. HARP, NA, RG-77, OCE, LR, S-1028, HY. A. Thompson to "My dear
Captain" [Smith], March 2, 1840; HARP, NA, RG-77, OCE, LR, S-1028
"Memorandum of expenses at Fort McHenry" [Henry Thompson J, [April
18401.
23
3. Damage and Repair
No sooner was the seawall completed when it suffered
damage in a storm--one of many through the years. A "gale from the
North and East which continued with violence" over the evening of
August 24, 1842, did "considerable injury to the seawall around the
Fort." Commanding Officer Captain J.M. Washington also reported the
public wharf had been washed away, but that the garrison recovered
several timbers. He urged repairs be commenced with "the least possible
delay." 16
Repairs to the wharf and seawall were estimated to cost
$250. An engineer from Washington was sent to examine the extent of
damage. Lieutenant J.H. Trapier provided the following instructions for
the repair work: "The prostrate portions of the wall are of course to be
carefully relaid, and any single stones that have been recovered to be
returned to their proper positions all which you are fully competent to do
17
in the best manner."
Lieutenant Trapier submitted the following estimate for
repairs of the seawall:
Masonry $ 40.00
Labour 80.00
Hire of Horses & Carts 12.50
Cement 7.00
Transportation of engr. officer to
& from the Fort 20.00
Contingencies 5.50 r
Amount required $165.00
16. HARP, NA, RG-92, OQMG, Consolidated File, J.M. Washington to
Brig. Genl. R. Jones, August 25, 1842.
17. HARP, NA, RG-92, OQMG, Consolidated File, Capt. S.B.
Dusenberry to Genl Thos S. Jesup, August 29, 1842; HARP, NA, RWD,
RG-77, OCE, SPLOE, 1812-69, Jos. G. Totten to Lt. J.H. Trapier,
September 5, 1842.
18. HARP, NA, RWD, RG-77, OCE, LR, 1838-66, Trapier to Col. J.G.
Totten, September 11, 1842.
24
The repairs to the seawall were finished by
19
September 28.
4. Further Requests to Extend Seawall
The seawall protected the north and east sides of the
military site but the south side, even though less vulnerable to storms
and waves, still suffered erosion. Requests to extend the wall on the
south side began as early as 1837 and continued after the north section
was completed. In January 1845 Lieutenant Pierre G.T. Beauregard of
the Corps of Engineers in Washington received directions "in relation to a
Sea Wall for the protection of the Hospital position, and also in relation to
20
some works contemplated for the protection of the shore. ..."
Twelve years later Lieutenant Colonel Lorenzon Thomas
inspected Fort McHenry and made the following observation:
The Sea Wall has never been completed so as to secure the
entire water fronts of the public grounds. It extends along the
entire north side, round the east corner, and on the South side
to a short distance west of the fort, but from this point to the
west wall separating the public grounds from private property
there is nothing to prevent the cutting away of the bank by
the action of the waves--the heavy rains have made large
gullies in this part of the public grounds whicj^ are increasing
in extent! The wall should be completed. . . .
Plans and cost estimates were made in February 1858 to
grade the drill ground and complete the wall. Fort • McHenry's
commanding officer, Major William H. French, informed the secretary of
19. HARP, NA, RWD, RG-77, OCE, LR, 1838-66, Trapier to Totten,
October 11 , 1842.
20. HARP, NA, RWD, RG-77, OCE, SPLOE, 1812-69, ? to Lt P. G.T.
Beauregard, January 7, 1845. Half of this letter is virtually
undecipherable and the other half is missing from HARP.
21. HARP, NA, RWD, RG-77, OCE, LR, 1838-66, "Extract from the
report of an inspection Made of Fort McHenry Md . November 28th, 1857
by Lieut. Colonel L. Thomas, Asst. Adjt. General."
25
war of the need for the work and estimated that grading the ground
would cost from $600 to $1,000 while "The Sea Wall will be more
22
expensive.
French's request moved through the engineering hierarchy
as Major Henry Brewerton of the Corps of Engineers submitted two
alternative estimates on March 15, 1858: one for partial grading of the
ground without finishing the seawall and without any attempt at stopping
erosion in the bluff on the south side, and a second for grading,
finishing the seawall and turning the bluff into a grassy slope. The
second estimate read:
Seawall, 1026 cub. yds of dry rubble
masonry at $6 $ 6,156
Apron for some 380 cub yds of stone
at $1.50 570
Excavation, including arrangement in new
position 15000 cub yds a 20c 3,000
Grassing 50000, square feet of slope 100
Contingencies 674 „_
$10,500.
Captain of Engineers Horatio G. Wright submitted Brewerton's estimate to
Secretary of War John B. Floyd on March 17, 1858. Wright commented,
"There are, however, no funds applicable to this object and therefore
nothing can be done until the necessary appropriation shall have been
made by Congress." If Floyd thought it important to begin the work,
Wright recommended that he apply to Congress for an appropriation of
24
$10,500 as per Major Brewerton's estimate.
22. HARP, NA, RWD, RG-77, OCE, LR, 1838-66, Wm . H. French to
Colonel S. Cooper, February 9, 1858.
23. HARP, NA, RWD, RG-77, OCE, LR, 1838-66, Henry Brewerton,
"Estimate of cost of grading drill ground and building Sea wall at Fort
McHenry Baltimore Md . " March 15, 1858.
24. HARP, NA, RWD, RG-77, OCE, LR, 1838-66, H.G. Wright to Hon.
John B. Floyd, March 17, 1858.
26
Either Secretary Floyd did not think the work important or
Congress did not see fit to appropriate the money, for in November 1862
in the midst of the Civil War Major Brewerton did not know if an
appropriation had been made. Writing to Chief Engineer Joseph G.
Totten, Brewerton referred to a letter written by Fort McHenry's
commanding officer, Major William W. Morris, to Lieutenant Colonel W.D.
Whipple of the Corps of Engineers. Morris' letter stated that an
appropriation had been made and he requested that an engineer be
directed to complete the seawall. Brewerton asked Totten if an
appropriation had been made, if the engineer department were responsible
25
for the seawall's construction and if so, he wanted instructions.
No answer to Brewerton's query was found in the HARP
files, but it is an obvious conclusion from the literature that the wall was
not built. Reports of repairs conducted at the fort in 1866, 1868, and
1869 do not mention any seawall construction while later documents
support construction dates in the 1890s.
In the next two decades after the Civil War the seawall at
Fort McHenry received attention in several different ways. Even though
no new sections of seawall were built, continual storm damage required
attention. Health and sanitation concerns arose, as did a threat to the
seawall from mining operations in the Patapsco River. Change occurred
at the northwest face of the seawall when land fill placed in front of it
extended the reservation's acreage even further. The post-Civil War
decades were fairly quiet ones at the fort (with the last major
construction occurring 1866-1867) and the seawall's history followed suit.
Repairs held sway, but major construction efforts were still years away.
25. HARP, NA, RG-77, OCE, LR, B-9359, Hen. Brewerton to Brig.
Genl. Jos. G. Totten, November 5, 1862.
26. See: HARP, microfilm reel 49, Wm . P. Craighill to Bvt. Major Genl.
A. A. Humphreys, December 10 1866; Ibid., J.H. Simpson to Humphreys,
October 15, 1868; Ibid., Simpson to Humphreys, October 7, 1869.
27
C . Interim Repair and Change 1876-1893
1 . Damage and Repair
The first mention of seawall damage found in the HARP
files after 1842 involved Fort McHenry's commanding officer's report of
damage on September 18, 1876. Lieutenant Colonel William H. French
reported that a storm the previous day had not only carried away
two-thirds of the wharf but had damaged the seawall. "The Sea Wall has
1
been washed badly in placed beyond the Post Traders."
Major William P. Craighill of the Baltimore U.S. Engineer
Office further described the damage: "The storm also shook up badly,
the south face of the sea wall about the site." Craighill believed repairs
2
could be made within the next month. The cost of repairs to the wharf
and seawall was estimated to be less than $1,000, a sum which was
promptly allotted. Repairs as extensive as funds would allow were made
3
in October and continued through November.
Conflicting evidence on damage to the seawall was found
for the year 1878. One report in March stated the seawall "in enough
places needs repairs, more or less extensive, but these are not
inoperative, and, would require, a considerable outlay if undertaken."
1. HARP, microfilm reel 56, Wm . H. French to Major W.P. Craighill,
September 18, 1876.
2. HARP, microfilm reel 46, Wm. P. Craighill, "Report of Operations at
Defenses of Baltimore Harbor, Md . during the month of September 1876,"
October 1, 1876.
3. HARP, microfilm reel 46, Craighill to Brigadier General A. A.
Humphreys, October 2, 1876; HARP, microfilm reel 46, "By Command &
C" to Craighill, October 4, 1876; HARP, microfilm reel 56, Thomas Lincoln
Casey, Lieut. Col. of Engineers to Craighill, October 4, 1876; HARP,
microfilm reel 46, Wm. P. Craighill, "Report of Operations at Defenses of
Baltimore Harbor, Md . during the month of October 1876" November 1,
1876; HARP, microfilm reel 46, Wm . P. Craighill, "Report of Operations at
Defenses of Baltimore Harbor, Md . during the month of November 1876,"
Wm. P. Craighill, December 1, 1876; HARP, microfilm reel 56, "Report of
Operations for fiscal year ending June 30, 1877 for Fort McHenry,
Baltimore Harbor, Md . , " Wm. P. Craighill, [July 1877].
28
Another report, written in July, mentioned only "A trifling encroachment
4
upon work by the sea in S.W. front."
The first observation was probably the more correct
because in March 1879 William Craighill reported that the seawall "has
come to be in such a state as to need very extensive repairs, which
should not be longer deferred." Craighill believed $2,700 was needed to
5
make the repairs. One month later Craighill was still asking for the
money "not exceeding $3,000" and he described the seawall as being "in
very bad condition." Craighill reported again in May that "Extensive
repairs to sea-wall and elsewhere are needed and will be begun if funds
can be had for expenditure in June."
Money was finally appropriated and reparation of the
seawall began in June 1879. Craighill thought the repairs were
"essential" to protect the seawall from further damage and to stop erosion
of the glacis by the sea washing through breaches in the seawall. He
described the breaches and repairs:
The two (2) worst of these, --looking due seaward — aggregating
400 ft in length, have been built up anew from foundations to
coping, and the line of wall from "Artillery Stables", S. West
angle round to "Sutler's Store" on East face--the part of wall
most directly exposed to the seas--besides equal to 892 ft. of
wall has been repaired thoroughly.
The plan of repair adopted, has been to level up the top course
proper in wall, set on this the large coping stone, in hydraulic
cement, grout in their joints, and connect them by heavy iron
clamps, let in and counter sunk, in top of stones.
4. HARP, microfilm reel 53, Jas. W. Cuyler to Craighill, March 14,
1878; HARP, NA, RG-159, OIG, LR, 1866-1887; Richard Arnold Major 5th
Arty to Asst. Adjt Genl. Dept of the East, July 15, 1878.
5. HARP, microfilm reel 35, Craighill to Acting Chief of Engineers,
March 31, 1879.
6. HARP, microfilm reel 35, Craighill to Chief of Engineers, April 22,
1879; HARP, microfilm reel 35, "Report of Operations for May 1879," Wm.
P. Craighill, May 31 , 1879.
29
Nearly all this work, --practically amounting to rebuilding, that
h wall--has been accomplished during the month, since the
9th inst.
55 pieces of granite coping-stone 23 cub yds
61 Tons, have been received
New Coping, 4' Wide & 9" Thick T. in Ft.
Set in wall 180
Total length of Wall, reset 7
and repaired 1292
In July Craighill reported that the seawall, "which had
been in bad repair for several years," had two breaches totaling 400 feet
in length made by storms during the winter of 1878-1879. The breaches
were repaired during the past month of June and, additionally, "892 lineal
feet of wall" from the artillery stalls to the sutler's store were repaired
o
and recoped. In July, 50 feet of wall near the sutler's store received
new coping; work which had not been completed at the end of June.
Craighill also recommended that the seawall be repaired for the rest of its
9
length, which extended about 1,200 feet.
More repairs were undertaken almost two years later. In
April and May 1881 Craighill reported the following work completed:
200 yards of coping of seawall, lineal (about)
removed and relaid and underpinned to a greater
or less extent.
22 yards, lineal, of coping of seawall removed,
relaid, and from one foot in height to one foot
six inches of wall rebuilt under it.
7. HARP, microfilm reel 35, "Report of Operations for June 1879," Wm.
P. Craighill, July 1, 1879.
8. HARP, microfilm reel 35, "Report of Operations for the fiscal year
ending June 30, 1879 for Fort McHenry Baltimore Harbor, Md . " Wm. P.
Craighill, July 1, 1879.
9. HARP, NA, OCE, RWD, RG-77, FB, LR, 1878-86, "Defenses of
Baltimore, Md . "Report of Operations for July 1879," Wm . P. Craighill,
August I, 1879; HARP, microfilm reel 53, Capt. Jas. W. Cuyler to
10, 1879.
30
132 lineal yards of coping on sea wall underpinned.
59 lineal feet of the sea wall taken down and
rebuilt (57 cubic yards). . . .
70.5 of coping were removed from the front where the
area is being filled in [near new water battery] and
used to replace coping broken or washed away of that
portion repaired.
Men from Fort McHenry's garrison assisted in the work.
The fort's animals hauled sod, coping and the fill, composed of brickbats
and stone, used "to back up the portions of the walls where the sea had
11
washed out the earth. ..." A month-and-a-half later the brickbats
and stone placed behind the seawall made "a somewhat rough appearing
job." Smoothing over and leveling these sites would require 50 cart loads
12
of ground, according to an estimate, costing $25.00 at $.50 per load.
In mid-June 1881 Lieutenant Colonel Craighill received
permission to contract for $600 to be used for repairs to the seawall or
otherwise. It is not known if he used these funds for the work just
13
completed or for prospective repairs not mentioned in HARP.
Major Loomis Langdon noted in May 1885 that the seawall
needed repairing in front of the center of the water battery. He
remarked, "One can detect it by the top moving as you step on it," and
he offered a description of the damage:
10. HARP, microfilm reel 53, Thomas Turtle to Craighill, April 2, 1881;
HARP, microfilm reel 35, "Report for April 1881," Wm. P. Craighill,
May 2, 1881; HARP, NA, OCE, RWD, RG-77, FB, LR 1878-86, "Defences
of Baltimore, Md . Report of Operations for May 1881," Wm. P. Craighill,
June 1, 1881 .
11. HARP, NA, OCE, RWD, RG-77, FB, LR, 1878-86, "Defences of
Baltimore, Md . Report of Operations for May 1881." Wm. P. Craighill,
June 1, 1881.
12. HARP, microfilm reel 53, Thomas Turtle to Craighill, July 12, 1881.
13. HARP, NA, OCE, RWD, RG-77, FB, LS, 1881-88, [George N.] Eliot
to Craighill, June 23, 1881.
31
Leaning over and looking down one can see the lower third of
the wall bulging out. It has settled there and the water,
surface drainage has probably undermined it. Base [?] maybe
a quick sand there--the place that needs repairing is about 15
yards long--or if not quite that long at least about 15 yards of
the wall should be taken down (or up) to get at the
foundation .
Langdon thought $300 was enough for the work, "but to be sure I would
15
say $400--and to do it well—sinking a foundation in a trench."
In January 1886 another "severe gale" injured the seawall,
"that portion looking toward Fort Carroll. ..." Two years later even
more damage occurred in June when the south end of the unfinished
water battery's parapet loosened and slid, nearly throwing the seawall
into the water. In reporting the incident in June 1888, Fort McHenry's
commanding officer Lieutenant Colonel L. L. Livingston remarked that the
seawall needed repair in several places and that the slide damage should
be repaired soon to prevent "fishing for stone from the water & loosing a
1 fi
mass of earth. ..." (See illustrations 7 and 8 for map and detail of
the lower battery parapet plan, 1870.)
Albert Mott of the Corps of Engineers offered the following
description of the damage and needed repair after inspecting the site of
the landslide with Colonel Livingston:
About one hundred feet in length of the slope of the south end
of the unfinished battery has slipped and pressed the sea wall
out of line about three feet, and out of plumb about one and
one half feet. The slip is the worst that has happened since
the battery was constructed. The earth behind the wall even
down to the foundation of it has apparently moved the wall out
14. HARP, microfilm reel 42, Langdon to "My Dear Colonel," [received at
U.S. Eng'r Office, May 19, 1885].
15. Ibid.
16. HARP, microfilm reel 42, E.C. Bainbridge to "My Dear Col"
[Craighill], January 8, 1886; HARP, NA, OCE, RWD, RG-77, FB, LR,
1878-86, "Report of Operations for January, 1886," Wm. P. Craighill,
February 2, 1886; HARP, microfilm reel 42, L.L. Livingston to "My dear
Craighill," June 10, 1888.
32
into the harbor bodily. A copious rain would probably cause
the slope and wall to be farther thrown into the harbor. It is
now dangerous to pedestrians and Col. Livingston has caused
signs to be placed near the slip warning people of the danger.
The location of the slip is the same that has twice or more been
for want of funds, temporarily repaired by merely filling in at
the top of previous slips and sodding it over. . . . The
present slip is also partially due to the insufficiency of funds
to properly repair the former breaks at the same place. A part
of it was repaired and re-inforced, by driving piles in the
foundation and filling in a trench dug at the foot of the slope
with stone. Funds did not admit of carrying this solid work
completely through to the south end of the battery, and so
such foundation was at the site of the present landslide. The
present slip commences about where the pile and stone
foundation ended. . . .
It is almost necessary that the filling in behind the sea wall,
should be- 7 excavated, and the wall reset on its original
line. . . .
-I o
Mott estimated permanent repairs would cost $2,750.
Colonel Craighill asked N.H. Hutton of the Corps of
Engineers to examine the damage in October. At first Hutton thought the
damage to be the result of soil saturation behind the seawall and he
proposed sinking two wells behind the terreplain to alleviate the problem.
He then changed his mind and thought the wall was undermined and had
fallen, thus causing the bank to slip afterwards, "simply because loss of
its 'foot hold." 1 Hutton recommended taking out the seawall, putting in a
new foundation when the seawall was rebuilt, and placing riprap in front
of it. Hutton's estimate of repair:
To repair wall & bank will cost about $700
To put other places in wall in order about $500 q
for all $1200
17. HARP, microfilm reel 53, Albert Mott to Craighill, June 15, 1888.
18. HARP, microfilm reel 53, Albert Mott to Craighill, October 2, 1888.
19. HARP, microfilm reel 42, N.H. Hutton to Mr. A. Mott, October 4,
1888; HARP, microfilm reel 42, N. Hutton to "Dear Col" [Craighill],
October 9, 1888.
33
Despite Hutton's lower estimate of repair, the Corps of
Engineers went with the earlier, higher estimate and allotted $2,750 to
20
Colonel Craighill for repair of the seawall and the adjacent parapet.
Repairs did not begin until the following year.
Hutton kept Craighill apprised of the seawall's condition
during the repairs. He found that the "old wall" contained very small
stones, that the wall was wretchedly built and that more new stone would
be needed than previously thought. An additional concern was the
widening of the 27-foot channel off Fort McHenry over the previous two
years. Deep water was much closer to the seawall than originally
contemplated. Waves from southeasterly storms formerly expended their
force on the wide shore in front of the seawall, but were now hitting
directly against the seawall. This condition resulted in undermining at
21
the seawall s base, and displacement of coping stones.
Hutton then offered a recommendation for protecting the
seawall :
The wall is built on flagstone generally simply laid on the
very hard natural bottom. In order to prevent this
undermining action, I recommend rip-rapping the most exposed
front.
Many coping stones are out of place & underpinning gone
from others--they should all be firmly bedded, cast in
cement--as the wall will fail quickly when coping is removed,
being largely built of very small stones in the back.
20. HARP, microfilm reel 42, Clinton B. Sears to Craighill, November 8,
1888.
21. HARP, microfilm reel 42, Hutton to Craighill, March 16, 1889; HARP,
microfilm reel 42, Hutton to Craighill, March 23, 1889.
22. HARP, microfilm reel 42, Hutton to Craighill, March 23, 1889.
34
Hutton estimated about 300 feet linear of riprap at $1.00 per foot was
23
required to protect the seawall. The total estimated cost was $300.
The Army negotiated a contract with George F. Nardin for
repairing the seawall on February 21, 1889. His completion date,
originally scheduled for April 30, 1889, was extended to May 31, 1889,
due to stormy weather and high tides. The work was delayed through no
24
fault of the contractor.
Continued bad weather forced captain of engineers Thomas
Turtle to seek another extension for the contractor to June 30, 1889. A
new storm on May 31 and subsequent rains damaged the seawall and water
battery slopes even further. According to Captain Turtle:
The new section of wall seven feet thick by seven feet high has
moved out bodily about three inches in center. It is proposed
to rip-rap in front of the sea-wall until a weight to balance the
pressure at rear is gotten. It is believed to be useless to take
the sea-wall down and re-build it, unless an expensive
coffer-dam is built and foundations excavated to a depth of six
or seven feet. The waJI is perfectly vertical but has moved out
on a horizontal plane.
Captain Turtle asked that $911.98 designated for Fort
Carroll repairs be transferred for the Fort McHenry repairs, and he
received $1,000. George F. Nardin's contract now needed supplements to
include the additional work to be completed by June 30, 1889. The new
23. HARP, microfilm reel 42, "Memorandum of Necessary Repairs,"
N.H.H. [Hutton], March 23, 1889.
24. HARP, microfilm reel 42, Thomas Turtle to the Chief of Engineers,
April 16, 1889; HARP, microfilm reel 42, Hutton to Turtle, May 21, 1889.
25. HARP, microfilm reel 42, Turtle to the Chief of Engineers, May 23,
1889; HARP, microfilm reel 42, Turtle to the Chief of Engineers, June 17,
1889.
26. HARP, microfilm reel 42, Turtle to the Chief of Engineers, June 17,
1889; HARP, microfilm reel 42, Clinton B. Sears to Turtle, June 21, 1889.
35
section of the seawall stopped moving by June 22 and repairs to the
27
slopes and seawall were underway by July 19, 1889.
At this point the historical record becomes confusing
because no mention of Nardin completing his contract on June 30, 1889,
was found. In August Colonel Craighill submitted an estimate of $1,986
to be used that month "in payments on contract for repair of water
battery and seawall at Fort McHenry, Md . and for repairs to drains to
28
the same work in September." ' Perhaps these funds were used to pay
Nardin's contract. However, references to repairs appear after June 30,
as seen above, and Nardin signed another contract to repair the seawall
in October. Perhaps the first contract focused on the initial slip damage
while the subsequent storm damage of May 31 was repaired under the
second contract.
On August 20 N.H. Hutton identified even more problems
with repairing the seawall. Refilling "dangerous holes" in the seawall
"near the Low Water line, and East of old Post Traders house," could not
be done until the fall during low water season. Four hundred dollars
were needed for these repairs. A few days later Colonel Craighill noted
that "much of the dry underpinning put in many years ago, needs
replacement in order to prevent the falling of considerable portions of the
29
wall. . . ."
The seawall was repaired once again under contract in
1889. The job was advertised on September 24, two bids were received,
and George F. Nardin's bid was the lowest. Approximately $1,500 was to
27. HARP, microfilm reel 42, Hutton to "Dear Sir" [Turtle], June 22,
1889; HARP, microfilm reel 56, Turtle to the Chief of Engineers, July 19,
1889.
28. HARP, microfilm reel 56, Craighill to the Chief of Engineers,
August 29, 1889.
29. HARP, microfilm reel 42, Hutton to Craighill, August 20, 1889;
Craighill to the Chief of Engineers," August 26, 1889.
36
be spent. Once again the record is unclear; no contract completion date
was found. Furthermore, on October 28, Hutton advised "removing the
upper half of seawall recently built, at end of exterior battery, and
rebuilding it in a straight line, merely as a matter of 'looks', the cost
would not exceed $150. ..." It seems that Hutton's observation
concerns the bulging seawall and that this work should have been covered
by Nardin's contract. Obviously the bulging wall was not covered under
the contract and was not repaired. Perhaps the contract only included
placing riprap and repairing holes. At the end of November Colonel
Craighill noted, "Work here is entirely suspended except a small amount
of repairs to the sea-wall at Fort McHenry which is done by a contractor
who is paid by the cubic yard, he furnishing all men and materials."
This implies no major seawall rebuilding occurred. Hutton wrote in
January 1890 that "Work at Fort McHenry is completed tho' not measured
yet entirely," and it is probable this work was the seawall repair. In
April Colonel Craighill had $1,000 left over from Preservation and Repair
of Fortifications appropriations of September 22, 1888, and March 2, 1889.
He remarked that repairs of the seawall and water battery parapet cost
less than estimated.
Evidently all the repair work was completed; no mention of
the seawall appears again until June 1892 when Colonel Craighill requested
funds for placing riprap at the foot of the seawall at the westerly end of
the exterior water battery. No action was taken, for Craighill still
sought the money in October, this time urging, "As this work requires
men to be in the water much of the time, it may be considered an
30. HARP, microfilm reel 56, Craighill to the Chief of Engineers,
August 29, 1889; HARP, microfilm reel 42, Craighill to The Chief of
Engineers, October 16, 1889; HARP, microfilm reel 42, Hutton to
Craighill, October 28, 1889; HARP, NA, RWD, RG-77, LS, BDO,
1878-1900, Craighill to Malcolm A. Black, November 30, 1889; HARP,
microfilm reel 42, Hutton to Craighill, January 17, 1890; HARP, microfilm
reel 56, Craighill to The Chief of Engineers, April 5, 1890.
37
emergency and I request authority to proceed with it at once by hiring
31
men for the purpose, as the season is advanced."
Twenty-five dollars was available for "replacing riprap at
bulge of seawall at Fort McHenry." This statement again confirms that
the riprap was being replaced and that the bulging wall had not been
repaired in 1889. Both Craighill and Hutton wanted to get started on the
work immediately, but they had to wait until a "N.W. wind gives lower
tides than now prevail." The wait lasted until the following year.
Because of inclement weather all fall, winter and spring the work had not
yet been started by April 1893. Craighill thought the work could be
finished before the end of June. Although no completion reports were
found, the $25 was still available in June, and it is assumed the riprap
32
repairs were completed.
Another storm on August 28, 1893, destroyed the wharf,
damaged earthworks and "carried away" extensive sections of the seawall.
Craighill estimated repairs would cost $2,500. His estimate had to be
revised upwards in October because another "severe gale" on the 13th did
33
even more damage.
Fort McHenry's commanding officer Major George B.
Rodney described both the storms and the seawall's condition:
31. HARP, microfilm reel 56, Craighill to Brig Gen Thomas Casey,
June 24, 1892; HARP, microfilm reel 42, John G.D. Knight to Craighill,
October 6, 1892; HARP, microfilm reel 42, Craighill to Casey, October 7,
1892.
32. HARP, microfilm reel 56, Craighill to Hutton, October 11, 1892;
HARP, microfilm reel 42, Hutton to Craighill, October 12, 1892; HARP,
microfilm reel 56, Craighill to Casey, April 12, 1893; HARP, microfilm
reel 42, John G.D. Knight to Craighill, June 26, 1893.
33. HARP, microfilm reel 42, R.P. Strong to the Assistant Adjutant
General, August 30, 1893; HARP, microfilm reel 56, Craighill to Casey,
September 7, 1893; HARP, microfilm reel 56, Craighill to Casey,
October 20, 1893.
38
The sea wall which was badly damaged by the storm of August
28th was still further damaged and several sections measuring
from twenty to thirty feet in length have been opened. The
opening made in the sea wall by the storm of August 28, has
been increased in dimensions, the opening now measuring about
seventy five feet in length and is nothing more than an open
beach. The tide rose some three feet above the sea wall from a
point near the old wharf on the north side of the reservation,
around the south side, almost to the cemetery, which was badly
washed along its water front. If we should have one or two
more such storms during the coming winter the sea wall for
over a hundred yards on the south side will be destroyed.
Colonel Craighill received $2,000 and repairs were
underway, but by December 7 they were stopped for the winter. In the
spring of 1894 Craighill placed advertisements in public places inviting
35
proposals for building materials needed for the seawall repair. Two
proposals were accepted on May 15 and 16. George F. Nardin of
Baltimore County was to supply the following materials:
300 bus. Clean Sand @ 6 cts per bushel $ 18.00
100 ft. 4 inch Coping, 3 feet wide @
85 cts per foot 85.00
75 perches Stone, @ $2.85 per perch 176.25
$279.25
Delivery of materials was to start on May 21. Craighill also accepted
the following proposal for materials from Maryland Lime and Cement
Company of Baltimore: "50 Bbls cement (Anchor Rosedale) @ $1.00 per
bbl. --Total $55.00. . . ." 37
34. HARP, microfilm reel 42, Geo. B. Rodney to the Assistant Adjutant
General, October 20, 1893.
35. HARP, microfilm reel 42, Knight to Craighill, November 1, 1893;
HARP, microfilm reel 56, Craighill to Casey, December 7, 1893; HARP,
microfilm reel 56, Craighill to Casey, May 3, 1894.
36. HARP, microfilm reel 56, Craighill to Geo. F. Nardin, May 15, 1894.
37. HARP, microfilm reel 56, Craighill to Maryland Lime & Cement Co.,
May 16, 1894.
39
Repairs were started with the $2,000 allotment but by June
38
30, 1894, they were suspended for want of funds. No completion date
for the work was found in HARP.
Between the years 1876 and 1893 the seawall suffered
damage time and time again from the stormy weather and high waves.
Repairs remained crucial for the seawall protected the point and the fort
from serious washing. On several occasions previous damage was only
made worse by recurring storms even before repairs could be started.
The seawall demanded constant reparations throughout its history, as did
all the fortifications on Whetstone Point.
2. Dry Dock and Landfill
In 1878 changes were being discussed for the northwest
corner of the military reservation — changes which affected the seawall's
configuration. The Army planned to cede three acres of Fort McHenry
property to several local citizens for a dry dock. In addition, the
waterfront adjacent to the ceded tract would be filled to the "Port
Warden's Line" which would add eight and one half acres to the
reservation. Deducting the acres for the dry dock, the reservation
would increase five and one half acres. Since the fill would be ballast
dumped by ocean steamers the only cost to the Army would be the
construction of an outer seawall or bulkhead. The issue was brought to
the secretary of war's attention in 1879, when the chief of engineers
proposed filling in to the port warden's line, thus extending the drill
ground, and building a new
proposed boundary change.)
39
ground, and building a new seawall. (See illustration 9 for 1878 map of
A year later Major William Craighill proposed driving a few
piles to indicate the dumping limits since the fill would be placed in front
38. HARP, microfilm reel 56, Craighill to Casey, June 30, 1894.
39. HARP, NA, OCE, Land Papers, R.B. Marcy to General E.D.
Townsend, March 4, 1878; HARP, H.D. 46th Congress, 2d Session, House
of Representatives, Ex. Doc. 1, Part 2, Vol. 3., 1879-80, "Report of the
Chief of Engineers," October 20, 1879.
40
of the existing seawall. In February 1880 Craighill sought authority to
receive and pile large quantities of ballast which was constantly arriving
at the fort and which could be had for no expense. Not only did
Craighill hope to obtain fill from ballast, but also dredging material from
40
the builders of the dry dock.
By the next month material dredged from the adjacent dry
dock was being dumped at Fort McHenry. Colonel Craighill reported that
the dry dock contractors continued dumping "on the site between the
existing seawall and the prescribed Port Warden's line" through the
spring, and by April a bulkhead of ballast had been made along a line in
front of the site and "at a distance from the authorized pier line of 375
feet." Colonel Craighill also reported that a line had been established in
"the rear of the site at the same distance from the pier line." Craighill
proposed "to deposit in the area" ship ballast and other materials dredged
from the upper part of the Patapsco channel concurrent with channel
41
improvements for Baltimore.
At the end of May 1880 the dry dock contractors stopped
dumping their excavated materials at the site. By July 1, the dry dock
was completed and was being used. Colonel Craighill once again
recommended building a seawall along the line of the temporary
42
bulkhead.
40. HARP, NA, OCE, Land Papers, "List of Papers Herewith"
February 24, 1880; HARP, NA, OCE, RWD, RG-77, RB, LR, 1878-86,
Craighill, Maj W.P., February 16, 1880; HARP, NA, OCE, RWD, RG-77,
FB, LR, 1878-87, Craighill, Major W.P., February 25, 1880.
41. HARP, microfilm reel 35, "Report of Operations for March 1880," Wm.
P. Craighill, March 31, 1880; HARP, microfilm reel 35, "Report of
Operations for April 1880," Wm. P. Craighill, May 1, 1880.
42. HARP, microfilm reel 35, "Report of Operations for May 1880," Wm.
P. Craighill, June 1, 1880; HARP, NA, OCE, RWD, RG-77, RB, LR
1878-86, "Report of Operations for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1880
for Fort McHenry Baltimore harbor," Major Wm . P. Craighill, June 30,
1880. Congress had granted permission to an incorporated dry dock
company to build the dry dock, located on government property.
• II
Even though the dry dock was finished and dumping from
that operation discontinued, ballast was still deposited "in front of the
site" and material dredged from the Patapsco was dumped "behind the
site." Dumping in front of the seawall continued through the summer and
fall of 1880 and into the spring of 1881. By May, the filling process had
slowed because of a scarcity of vessels coming in to dump ballast.
Evidently this problem continued for the next several years. In June
1882 proposals were made to rebuild the wharf, which was in poor
condition, and to move it next to the works of the Dry Dock Company.
Colonel Craighill still expected to "fill out solidly to the authorized
'Bulkhead line' with ballast, and then to construct an abutment and
timber pier. . . ."
By mid-1885 the filling was not yet finished. Craighill
reported little progress had been made because of the few vessels
depositing ballast. Once again Craighill requested the wharf be removed
and a new one built near the dry dock, and that a seawall be built along
44
the temporary bulkhead line.
No further references to the filling were found. It is not
known when the dumping of ballast stopped, but requests to build a new
seawall in front of the fill continued into the late 1880s and early 1890s.
43. HARP, microfilm reel 35, "Report of Operations for June 1880,"
Craighill, June 1, 1880; HARP, microfilm reel 35, "Report of Operations
for July 1880," Craighill, July 31, 1880; HARP, microfilm reel 35, "Report
of Operations for August 1880," Craighill, September 1, 1880; HARP,
microfilm reel 35, "Report of Operations for September 1880," Craighill,
October 1, 1880; HARP, microfilm reel 35, "Report of Operations for
October 1880," Craighill, November 1, 1880; HARP, microfilm reel 35,
"Report of Operations for November 1880," Craighill, December 1, 1880;
HARP, microfilm reel 35, "Report for March 1881," Craighill, April 1,
1881; HARP, NA, OCE, RWD, RG-77, FB, LR, 1878-86, "Report for April
1881," Craighill, May 2, 1881; HARP, NA, RWD, RG-77, OCE, LS,
Fortifications, January 1881 - November 1884, Craighill to General Wright,
June 30, 1882.
44. HARP, microfilm reel 35, "Annual Report, Fort McHenry." Craighill,
June 30, 1885.
42
3. Health Concerns
One side effect of the construction on the northwest
corner of the military reservation was a concern about sanitation. In
1875 a beach rapidly formed along the seawall from the wharf to the
seawall's "termination on the west." The post surgeon noted the beach
was covered by very high tides and was a collector of trash and filth
from both the harbor and the garrison. In the surgeon's opinion the
beach neutralized the sanitary benefits of the seawall. He also believed a
log boom belonging to the Baltimore and Ohio Railroad which encroached
45
on the reservation's waterfront assisted in forming the beach.
Major William Craighill responded to the surgeon's
concerns. In his estimation the seawall, "built about 40 years ago" had
served its purpose well. He disagreed that the size of the beach had
rapidly increased. On the contrary, very little beach existed at all, and
what did exist was formed by the garrison constantly throwing matter
over the wall. This served as a "nucleus" for gathering other matter
moved by "the influence of winds, waves and currents." Beaches were
constantly increasing and decreasing. In Craighill's estimation, the effect
of the B & O Railroad's log boom was minimal in terms of forming a beach
or stagnating the water. No money was available for "changing the
position of the sea-wall, but it is my opinion that it should someday be
carried out considerably, for the purpose of giving more room for drilling
46
and for buildings."
Five years passed but the question of sanitation emerged
again after the filling commenced. In 1880 another surgeon asked what
effect the filling had on the garrison's health and Craighill again
responded. He explained that the fill consisted of ship ballast, dry dock
excavations and oyster shells from packing houses in Baltimore. The
45. HARP, microfilm reel 46, D. Bache to Post Adjutant, May 31, 1875
46. HARP, microfilm reel 46, Craighill to Brigadier General A. A
Humphreys, July 13, 1875.
43
work was done carefully, and no matter was placed above the water line
which could pose a sanitation problem. In Craighill's opinion disagreeable
odors came not from the fill, but from slop and other matter poured into
the drains at the soldiers' barracks.
Craighill did admit the space along the old seawall was out
of the current and did collect "floating bodies, such as those of dead
dogs, cats, &c." This situation was made worse since the Dry Dock
Company made a large filling which cut off the current. But Craighill
believed the new bulkhead and the filling helped alleviate the problem.
47
"The tide ebbs and flows regularly in the enclosed space not filled."
Further sanitation concerns connected to the seawall
involved the placement of privies. Several references appear in the 1870s
and 1880s which mention the problems associated with this type of
plumbing. Four mens 1 sinks, or privies, were located on the seawall in
the early 1870s, but they were not "built sufficiently far out to secure
48
removal of the excreta by the tide." In January 1885 Lieutenant
Colonel Loomis L. Langdon discussed engineering work to be done at Fort
McHenry and mentioned the need for a water closet for the engineer
workmen. He wanted to have a substantial cesspool built with masonry,
brick and cement. Langdon's reason for such an expenditure and change
from past practice reveals a slice of social life at the fort: "I do not like
to put it [the water closet] on the sea-wall where it stood years ago, for
49
that sea-wall is the only promenade the ladies here have left."
47. HARP, NA, OCE, Land Papers, Craighill to Brig. Genl. H.G.
Wright, December 22, 1880.
48. HARP, microfilm reel 45, "Reports of Surgeons J. Simpson and D.
Bache," circa 1870-1874 [?]. See also pp. 68-69 of Thompson, HSR, for
references to seawall privies.
49. HARP, microfilm reel 42, "Programme of Engineer Work to be done at
Fort McHenry, Md prior to the first day of July 1885," Loomis L.
Langdon, January 29, 1885.
44
Not only did the seawall protect the Fort McHenry grounds
from washing away, 't also protected the fort's garrison from disease by
keeping washed debris from accumulating on the property. When used
properly, the privies on the seawall provided as healthful conditions as
possible at the time because refuse was regularly washed away.
However, questions were raised concerning possible unsanitary conditions
generated by the fill in front of the seawall and the proper location of
the privies. One can only sympathize with the women and men who,
perhaps on their daily walks, had to make wide berths around offensive
areas on or next to their "promenade"--the seawall.
4. Threat to Seawall from Miners
The seawall suffered more threats than those presented by
the weather and tides. Some of them were caused by people. In 1873
Colonel Craighill worried about the "pickers-up of ore" who were
operating within 30 feet of the seawall. A Mr. Murdock and others
disregarded regulations keeping them 30 feet away and were at the
seawall's "very foot." Craighill remarked, "It would serve some of them
right if the wall would topple over on them." No further identification
of these ore miners was found.
Ten years later in May 1883 Craighill learned that iron
miners in the Patapsco near the seawall were throwing mud and rock
refuse into the water where they worked. Recently they had come onto
the fort's grounds and "threw into the water some dirt which the Post
Trader had excavated in putting up his building and which he had placed
51
over the loose bricks piled in rear of the sea wall as a support to it."
Thomas Turtle inspected the locality where the iron ore miners were
searching and he advised Craighill, "if the United States has any rights
in the matter they ought to be asserted, and the sooner the better." So
50. HARP, microfilm reel 56, Craighill to Major Genl. W. H. French,
November 15, 1873.
51. HARP, microfilm reel 53, H.G. Gibson to Craighill, May 23, 1883.
45
far as Turtle could see no injury had yet been done to the defenses or to
the seawall, but placing even temporary mining structures posed the
52
possibility they would be difficult to move or to limit.
In September 1883 a Charles Wroten applied to mine within
10 feet of the seawall's face. Thomas Turtle thought this distance was
too close especially because no depth limit was mentioned. Turtle's
concerns were based on the seawall's construction:
A portion of one face of the sea wall is built upon a very
unstable sand and has already on that account been taken up
and rebuilt. Such working as Mr. Wroten proposes would in my
judgement result in the shaking of this foundation again and
necessitate the rebuilding of that portion of the wall for the
second time. . . .
No documentation was found regarding the Army's decision
in this matter. Regardless, the episodes reveal that iron mining occurred
in the river within 30 feet, and possibly as close as 10 feet, of the
seawall, a portion of which stood on unstable sand. The engineers
recognized the seawall's weaknesses and strove to prevent inadvertent
damage by the miners.
Fort McHenry's seawall withstood a relentless battering
caused by wind and waves. The army engineers' attempts to keep the
seawall in good repair are worthy of admiration when considering the
monetary requirements and the accompanying race against time — fixing
sometimes major damage before another storm engulfed the point. The
various descriptions of repair reveal the techniques used to fix the
seawall, the costs involved and materials utilized. The engineers
sometimes made repairs only for as long as the money lasted. Even
though many details of the repairs, especially references to location, were
52. HARP, microfilm reel 53, Thomas Turtle to "Colonel" [Craighill],
May 29, 1883.
53. HARP, microfilm reel 53, Turtle to "Colonel" [Craighill],
September 6, 1883.
46
not found in the engineers' writings, a general picture does emerge; one
of repair as frequent as the change of seasons. But when compared to
the seemingly endless work required to keep up the fortifications
54
themselves the seawall probably did not require any more attention. As
long as it was kept in good order the seawall performed its task of
keeping the grounds' perimeter free of debris and encroachments by the
surrounding water.
54. See Thompson, HSR, pp. 89-118,
47
D. Third Stage Construction 1894-1897
1 . Requests to Protect Cemetery and South Front
Requests to extend the seawall on the south side,
especially in front of the cemetery, occurred throughout the 1870s and
1880s, often in conjunction with requests for a seawall extension on the
northwest front to protect the new filled acreage. (See illustrations 10
and 11 for 1870 proposal to build seawall.) In 1870 an inspection of Fort
McHenry revealed that the sea was "encroaching on the work" and that a
seawall was needed to protect it. There is confusion, however, over the
inspection report the following year. The inspector wrote in April 1871,
"A new wharf and seawall has been built at this post since my last
1
inspection." Because no information was found in HARP detailing any
seawall construction between 1839 and 1894, the meaning of this remark is
not known. Perhaps the inspector referred to repairs of the seawall
which occurred the previous year, even though no mention of seawall
repair in 1870-1871 was found either. (See Chapter C, section 1.)
In August 1884 Colonel Loomis Langdon complained that
bay waters had cut away the bank "where the sea-wall ends, down by the
bake house, just at the point where I had built a platform, the 200 yard
firing point." Langdon tried to halt the erosion by throwing ashes,
collected every morning at the post, on the site, but he admitted to the
futility of the effort. In his view, "The better plan would be to continue
the sea-wall all the way around." Langdon thought he could build a few
yards of the wall with materials stored at the fort. If no wall were
started, Langdon even suggested "piling in there all that old pile of
concrete stone that lies in a great pile on the right of the road to the
Sutler Store." The material would still be available if needed for another
project, and Langdon would use "ashes and refuse to fill up the holes
1. HARP, NA, RG-159, OIG, LR, 1866-1889, "Post of Fort McHenry,
Commanded by Brevet Brig General Horace Brooks, Inspected April 28th,
1870"; HARP, NA, RG-159, OIG, LR, 1866-1889, "Post of Fort McHenry,
Md . , Commanded by Colonel Horace Brooks 4th Artillery, Inspected April
20th, 1871."
48
that were made by getting out dirt beyond the cemetery for the Water
2
Battery."
Evidently no action was taken on Langdon's offers for in
January 1885 he still sought permission to fill in the erosion or build the
seawall. He wanted the "sea-wall down by the bake-house [to] be
prolonged northerly." In addition to the material piled alongside the road
for fill, Langdon suggested using material "consisting of the old sea-wall
east of the barracks half buried in the sand. ..." Before he would
begin the work, he would have an exact line laid out by someone from the
engineer's office. Langdon thought the work a necessity because the sea
was making "inroads" at the
bakery and barracks in 1888.)
3
was making "inroads" at the site. (See illustration 12 for location of
Langdon's suggestions concerning the need for a seawall
on the point's southern side were contained in a program of engineering
work to be done at the fort and this program was approved. Despite
this, in May Langdon again requested the work be done. The need for
the wall, he thought, was not so much for protection from the sea, but
for protection from the heavy rains washing down the banks. Langdon
thought it a matter of time before the whole bank washed down. Once
again, Langdon urged that material from the old seawall buried in the
ground behind the men's quarters be used for a new seawall. Labor was
the only expense: $1,680 for 20 laborers at $1.50 per day for 56 days.
Langdon thought the cost was "A pretty big item--but I think -essential to
4
the well being of the place."
2. HARP, microfilm reel 42, Langdon to "My Dear Mr. Mott,"
August 12, 1884.
3. HARP, microfilm reel 42, "Programme of Engineer Work to be done at
Fort McHenry, Md . prior to the first day of July 1885," Langdon,
January 29, 1885.
4. HARP, microfilm reel 42, Langdon to "My Dear Colonel," February 1,
1885; HARP, microfilm reel 42, Langdon to "My Dear Colonel," [received
at U.S. Eng'r Office, May 19, 1885].
49
Five years passed and estimates for protecting the
cemetery site were still being developed. One estimate suggested building
a retaining wall 75 feet long, 10 feet high, four feet wide with a
5
foundation one foot below low water at a cost of $470.
Three years later Fort McHenry's commanding officer,
Major George B. Rodney, still sought the seawall's extension because a
storm on October 13, 1893, "washed" the grass at the post cemetery and
badly exposed some graves. An estimate in December to grade and fill
ground in the rear of the cemetery and the adjacent slope included 5,000
cubic yards of earth and shell filling at 50 cents, totaling $2,500.
Eight months later, in August 1894, engineer N.H. Hutton
thought the most serious injury to the site requiring immediate attention
was the front of the cemetery. "At this point, the erosion has been such
as to expose the contents of the graves." Hutton's estimate for
protecting the cemetery was:
To build a protective wall and grade the ground to
proper slopes for stability will cost $3100
that is
150 c.y. rip rap @ $3 1/2 in place $ 525
150 " dry wall @ $5 " $ 750
200 ft coping @ $ 1/2 " $ 300
5000 c.y. excavation & embankment @ 30 $1,500
Contingencies $ 25 7
Total $3,100
5. HARP, microfilm reel 42, Chas. Y. Woodward to Craighill, June 1,
1890; HARP, microfilm reel 42, [?] to Woodward, June 12, [1890].
6. HARP, microfilm reel 42, Maj . Geo. B. Rodney to Craighill,
November 19, 1893; HARP, microfilm reel 42A , Hutton to Craighill,
December 6, 1893.
7. HARP, microfilm reel 42, Hutton to Craighill, August 13, 1894.
Hutton also included an estimate to build a seawall along the "whole
front," 1043 ft. in length. This estimate probably refers to the seawall
on the northwest front. Hutton provided dimensions but they are also
probably for the northwest seawall rather than the south front seawall.
The October 13 storm uncovered the grave of an officer whose remains
were reburied. HARP, microfilm reel 56, Craighill to Brig Genl Thomas
L. Casey, June 30, 1894.
50
Mutton's final thought was that "The cemetery should, at all means be
protected . "
A little more than a month later an allotment of $3, TOO was
granted for the work. William Craighill hoped that the construction of a
section of seawall behind the cemetery would be "the beginning of a wall
9
all along the rear."
2. Building Seawall Behind Cemetery
The Army engineers went ahead with plans to extend the
seawall below the cemetery on the south front of the fort's grounds.
Colonel Craighill had advertisements placed in the Baltimore Sun and Daily
News October 4, 1894, seeking proposals for building a seawall. The
bids were opened on October 20; George F. Nardin was chosen as
10
contractor and his contract was dated October 25, 1894.
Problems arose within the month. Fort McHenry
commander Major George B. Rodney objected to the contractor's use of
the road and wharf for transporting materials. If Colonel Craighill had
known this was a problem he would have procured an order from
Washington but under the circumstances he asked Rodney to allow the
contractor "repairing the wall behind the cemetery" the use of the road
and wharf. In view of Rodney's opposition, George Nardin agreed to pay
one half the cost for any damage done to the wharf or roads occurring
during work under contract. Any such expense would be deducted from
11
money due Nardin as liquidated damages.
8. HARP, microfilm reel 42, Hutton to Craighill, August 13, 1894.
9. HARP, microfilm reel 42, John G.D. Knight to Craighill,
September 25, 1894; HARP, microfilm reel 56, Craighill to Rodney,
October 2, 1894.
10. HARP, microfilm reel 56, Craighill to Chief Clerk, War Dept.,
October 4, 1894; HARP, microfilm reel 56, Hutton to Casey, October 20,
1894; HARP, microfilm reel 42, Geo. W. Goethels to Craighill,
November 13, 1894.
11. HARP, microfilm reel 42, Craighill to Rodney, November 15, 1894;
Geo. F. Nardin to Craighill, November 15, 1894.
51
George Nardin began work on November 9 but by
December 17 he sought an extension of 60 days for the completion of his
contract. He explained, "The work was delayed for some time by reason
of high tides preventing me from digging the foundations through the
hard clay." Engineer Hutton examined Nardin's request and noted the
contractor had lost 16 work days to the "unusual" high tides of November
and December. During these months northwest winds usually produced
low tides, but this year the winds were southerly and southeasterly,
which produced the high tides. Hutton did not see any advantage to
having Nardin stop work and resume in the spring because "the liability
to high tides would then be increased." Two or three days of westerly
winds would allow Nardin to work above the tide's influence, and Hutton
12
recommended the extension of 30 days be granted.
Craighill granted Nardin a 60-day extension--20 days with
no expenses deducted for inspection and supervision and 40 days more
with the expenses of inspection and supervision to be deducted from
Nardin's payments. The work continued and in December Nardin hauled
stone from the Falls' Road during good weather. By December 24 all the
13
foundation was in and about 80 feet of seawall three feet high built.
Two months passed and Nardin had placed 150 cubic yards
of riprap, 100 cubic yards of masonry, and 358 cubic yards of earth
filling. Evidently the work then stopped for some reason, possibly
weather, for on March 24 Craighill asked Nardin to resume work on the
seawall by April 1. Craighill added, "The drain pipe from officer's
12. HARP, microfilm reel 56, Craighill to Casey, January 4, 1895; HARP,
microfilm reel 42, Nardin to Craighill, December 17, 1894; HARP,
microfilm reel 42, Hutton to Craighill, December 18, 1894.
13. HARP, microfilm reel 56, Craighill to Nardin, January 2, 1895;
HARP, microfilm reel 42, Hutton to "Dear Sir," [Craighill], December 24,
1894.
52
quarters which was broken last fall, must be repaired by you at the
14
earliest opportunity."
George Nardin completed his contract on May 11, 1895,
having built 227 feet of seawall below the cemetery. Even as he finished
his work, plans were underway to extend the seawall along the entire
15
south front of the Fort McHenry reservation.
3. Building Seawall on South Front
Engineer Hutton proceeded with plans to extend the
seawall along the entire southern front and he wanted a new drawing of
the seawall made and specifications developed for prospective bidders.
When Craighill sent the specifications to the secretary of war he included
the stipulation that the contractor be responsible for the condition of "all
wharves, roads, and parts of the ground on reservation" used during the
work s progress.
The work was advertised on March 28, 1895, and bids
opened on April 30. Nine bids were received and Albert Weber won the
contract, dated May 4. Weber began work but soon suffered the same
problems which had plagued Nardin. At the end of July Weber sought an
extension of his contract to August 5, because of extraordinary high
tides. His request was granted and a new completion date was set for
September 30, 1895. 17
14. HARP, microfilm reel 42, Hutton to Craighill, February 19, 1895;
HARP, microfilm reel 56, Craighill to Nardin, March 24, 1895.
15. HARP, "Report for year ending June 30, 1895," Colonel Peter C.
Hains, [July 1895] .
16. HARP, microfilm reel 42, Hutton to Craighill, March 24, 1895; HARP,
microfilm reel 56, Craighill to Rodney, March 28, 1895.
17. HARP, microfilm reel 56, Craighill to Casey, April 30, 1895; HARP,
microfilm reel 56, Craighill to Albert Weber, April 30, 1895; HARP,
microfilm reel 42, H.M. Adams to Craighill, May 1, 1895; HARP, microfilm
reel 56, Craighill to Casey, May 7, 1895; HARP, microfilm reel 42, Adams
to Craighill, May 13, 1895; HARP, microfilm reel 42, Peter C. Hains to
Craighill, July 31, 1895; HARP, microfilm reel 56, Hains to Weber,
August 5, 1895.
53
At mid-September the filling-in behind the new seawall was
almost completed and bare ground was soon to be covered with "street
sweepings" or other material for growing grass. The final estimate
(dated September 20) of Weber's completed work included the following
materials and costs:
Total work done:
Rip-rap foundation:
794 ft. by 10 ft by 1 ft = 294 c. yds @ $2.24 $ 658.56
Dry Wall:
814 ft @ 22 3/4 sq. ft. per foot, or 685.85 c.y. @ $3.62 $2482.77
Coping 6" x 3 ft in cement
812 ft @ $1.95 per ft $1583.40
Earth filling
4.322 c.y. @ $.25 per yd. $1080.50
Total value of work done $5085.23
18
Albert Weber finished the last section of the seawall by
September 19, 1895, and completed his contract. Engineer Hutton
submitted a final estimate of Weber's work to Colonel Peter C. Hains of
the Corps of Engineers on September 23. This supplement to the
September 20 estimate included the following work completed since
August 27:
95.85 c.y. masonry in Wall @ $3.62
112 linear ft 6" 36" coping @ $1.95
36 c.y. rip rap foundations @ $2.24
3322 c.y. earth filling @ $.25
or in all
to which must be added retd : %
making due him now
previous payments
making total as per estimate of 21st
$ 346.97
$ 218.40
$ 80.64
$ 830.50
$1476.51
$1132.87
$1909.38
$3895.88
$5805.23
19
18. HARP, microfilm reel 42, Hutton to Hains, September 14, 1895;
HARP, microfilm reel 42, Hutton to [Engineers Office, Baltimore],
September 20, 1895.
19. HARP, microfilm reel 42, Hutton to Hains, September 20, 1895;
HARP, microfilm reel 42, Hutton to Hains, September 23, 1895. Hutton
submitted the September 20 estimate on the 21st and mentions this in his
September 23 letter.
54
4. Requests to Extend Seawall on Northwest Front
After the temporary bulkhead was established and land
filled on the northwest side of the Fort McHenry reservation, site
commanders continued to request a permanent seawall be built to contain
the fill. By 1892 the agent of the Baltimore & Ohio Railroad wanted to
place even more ballast fill inside the bulkhead of oyster shells. This
action would help fill the "disagreeable if not unhealthy quasi-lake"
existing at the site. The requests for the seawall continued throughout
20
the early 1890s.
In December 1893 engineer Hutton estimated the seawall
extending "from its present terminus, on the Western face of Reservation,
to the north boundary wall" would require 2,300 cubic yards of dry stone
masonry at $6 totalling $7,800 and 1000 feet 6" coping at $1 totaling
$1,000. 21 (Se
front in 1893.)
21
$1,000. (See illustration 13 for diagram of conditions at northwest
Eight months later Hutton submitted another estimate to
Colonel Craighill. In addition to estimating the cost of a retaining wall on
the south side to protect the cemetery, Hutton offered the following
figures for a seawall to protect the "whole front," 1043 feet in length:
600 c.y. rip rap in place @ $3 1/2 $ 2100
700 " dry wall " " @ $5 $ 3500
1050 ft. coping @ $1 in place $ 1050
25000 c.y. excavation & embank @ $25 $ 6250
Total $12900
William Craighill reported Hutton's estimate to Chief
Engineer Thomas L. Casey and remarked that the entire western face of
20. HARP, microfilm reel 56, "Report for year ending June 30, 1889,
[July 1889?]; HARP, microfilm reel 56, "Report for year ending June 30,
1889," [July 1890?]; HARP, microfilm reel 42, Jas. Gales Ramsey
Craighill, June 2, 1892; HARP, microfilm reel 56, "Report for year Ending
June 30, 1892," [July 1892?].
21. HARP, microfilm reel 42, Hutton to Craighill, December 6, 1893.
22. HARP, microfilm reel 42, Hutton to Craighill, August 13, 1894.
55
the property was entirely unprotected from the waters and had suffered
undermining. Craighill told Casey that 1045 feet of seawall would cost
$12,900. 23
The Army took no action until 1895. An estimate was then
made as to required materials and cost for completing the filling which
had occurred over the years:
Sea Wall North Front
660 ft. linr wall @ $7.50 per foot $ 4,950
35,000 c. yds. filling @ $.20 $ 7,000
3000 sq. yds. graded sod @ $.50 $ 1,500
100 trees @ $3 (planted) $ 300
Total $13,750
The fill, sod, and planted trees were needed to "complete an addition to
the grounds constructed long ago, and now in an unsightly condition on
the most exposed front of reservation." The trees were needed to screen
24
the barracks latrines. Colonel Peter Hains relayed the estimate to Chief
Engineer William Craighill, who approved it. Hains was to use an
allotment currently in his hands, as far as it would go, for portions of
the work.
5. Building Seawall on Northwest Front
Colonel Hains received another allotment the next year, in
July 1896, of $13,750 for the seawall and embankment. Bids were made
and opened, and the firm of Nardin and Anderson chosen for the work by
August. (See appendix A for the seawall contract.) Nardin and
Anderson's contract, dated August 17, 1896, was for "building a sea-wall
and making repairs at Fort McHenry, Md . " Two rowboats were hired to
23. HARP, microfilm reel 56, Craighill to Brig. Genl. Thomas L. Casey,
August 16, 1894.
24. HARP, microfilm reel 42, Hutton to Col. P.G. Hains, September 10,
1895.
25. HARP, microfilm reel 42, Hains to Craighill, September 14, 1895;
HARP, microfilm reel 42, Craighill to Hains, October 17, 1895. Craighill
replaced Casey as chief engineer in May 1895.
56
assist with the work. In October Nardin and Anderson proposed further
work on the refill in back of the old seawall, in addition to their contract
work on the new seawall. The firm offered to remove and replace the soil
after refilling, plus furnishing and sowing grass seed over the refill at a
cost of 45 cents per cubic yard. Colonel Hains accepted the offer.
Work was still underway in December 1896 when the
contractors broke the sewer pipe "near where it joins the original one
which carries off the sewerage of the post, also that the original one is
broken where they took up the stones from the old wall, which has
caused the flooding of that part of the post." Evidently the task of
removing the old wall and its associated problems only added to the
contractors' woes, because Nardin and Anderson asked for an extension
of their contract in December. Owing to high tides, rain, and "more
earth than our first understanding," the contractors were unable to finish
the embankment's top dressing in time. Not knowing how soon they
would have to stop work because of frost, Nardin and Anderson asked
that their contract be extended from January 1 to April 1, 1897. Their
request was granted.
A year-end financial statement for operations at the fort
revealed details of the seawall's construction:
Total Riprap 1846.5 cu yds @ 1.49 $ 2,751.28
Earth and Shell Fill 29562 cu yds @ 0/24 7,094.88
Masonry for Sea Wall 410.5 cu yds @ $6.00 2,463.00
Coping laid 528 linear ft. @ 1.50 792.00
Total cost of work to Dec. 31st '96 $13,101.16
26. HARP, microfilm reel 42, Craighill to Hains, July 1, 1896; HARP,
microfilm reel 42, Craighill to Hains, August 26, 1896; HARP, microfilm
reel 42, Hains to Craighill, September 5, 1896; HARP, microfilm reel 56,
Hains to Nardin & Anderson, October 8, 1896.
27. HARP, microfilm reel 42, Samuel A. Kephart to Hains, December 13,
1896; HARP, microfilm reel 42, Nardin & Anderson to Hains, December 18,
1896; HARP, microfilm reel 56, Hains to Craighill, December 19, 1896;
HARP, microfilm reel 56, Hains to Nardin & Anderson, December 24, 1896.
57
Fill on East of Reservation Wharf 8192 cu yds
@ 45 $ 3,686.40
To be paid for to complete Sea Wall
129.2 lin ft coping @ 1.50 = $193.80
Total amt Spent to Dec. 31st, 1896
Sea Wall & Embk. $13,101.16
Fill East of wharf (RR) 3,686.40
$16,787.56
Cost of inspection 384. 75
Total Cost Spent 17,172.31,
To complete Coping for fill 20,000.00'
A handwritten note in HARP contained the following
information about the seawall:
Masonry Complete
Ht. of wall 5.3 above M.L.W.
4 ft wide at base, 3 ft at top, 5 ft coping
29
There are 659.7 linear ft of wall complete. (See
appendix B for sample daily operations reports for this work.)
The contractors' problems continued on into the new year.
In March 1897 Nardin and Anderson asked for another extension, of two
weeks, because the weather had not allowed any work to be done since
January 1 . Two days of clear weather were needed after a rainy day
before carts could be used on refilled ground. The extension was
granted and the contract was completed by April 23, 1897. The
construction of the seawall, the filling in of the low grounds in back of
28. HARP, microfilm reel 42, "Money Statement to Dec. 31st 1896 for
Operations at Fort McHenry, Md . "
29. HARP, microfilm reel 42, handwritten note, [December 1896]. Many
rough notes and reports, all handwritten by John Keaney, for the 1896
work can be found at the end of reel 42.
58
it, the grading and seeding of the grounds and planting of trees
30 ~
considerably improved the appearance of the fort's grounds.
The history of Fort McHenry's seawall construction can be
viewed in cycles. In each of the three construction phases, the
recognized need for seawall protection occurred often years before money
was appropriated and the seawall built. Even though construction was
not always revealed in any detail in the historic literature, the Army
engineers did mention that bad weather and high tides often led to delays
of weeks. The seawall construction was repeatedly threatened by the
same forces which washed and undermined Point Whetstone. Work
progressed only under ideal conditions of low tides and calm skies.
Eighty-one years elapsed between the initial building of a section of
seawall in 1816 on the southeastern face of the military reservation and
the final enclosure of the site in 1897 by the rebuilt seawall extension on
the northwestern face. What followed were years of damage by storms,
and repairs by both the War Department and the National Park Service.
30. HARP, microfilm reel 42, Nardin and Anderson to Hains, March 23,
1897; HARP, microfilm reel 42, Hains to Brig. Gen. John M. Wilson,
March 23, 1897; HARP, HD 55, C2, S1897-98, Vol. 3 [?], "Annual report
of the Chief of Engineers, United States Army," September 30, 1897.
59
E . Twentieth Century Damage and Repair
1 . Changes Under the War Department
Records in HARP for the next 35 years are very scarce.
As a result, little mention was found of needed seawall repairs. It is
possible that storm damage and subsequent repairs either went
unrecorded or that reports on the subject were not collected during the
HARP research. The few references which do refer to seawall repair do
little more than mention the fact--no details as to materials or cost are
given until the 1930s.
Fort McHenry's commanding officer, Major M. Crawford,
reported in August 1904 that "the earth behind the seawall at this post is
caving in in several places, notably along the suoth [south] eastern face,
1
due to the action of the waves through the bottom of the wall. He
requested repairs be made soon. No futher information concerning this
damage was found. A 1907 report detailing the estimated value of all
permanent improvements built by the Engineer Department near Baltimore
2
revealed that seawall improvements at Fort McHenry cost $45,000.
In the following years Fort McHenry's status changed
several times. (See illustration 14 for conditions in 1912 and illustrations
15 and 16 for period photographs.) The secretary of war gave the city
of Baltimore permission in 1914 to occupy the fort for public park
purposes. This permit was revoked when World War I was declared, and
in 1917 work began on General Hospital #2 at the site. The hospital was
built around the original fort and batteries without any damage to the
historical features. A 1919 map of the general hospital indicates that
seawall repair was needed. No documentation of this work was found.
(See illustrations 17 and 18 for 1919 map.) The War Department turned
1. HARP, microfilm reel 42, M. Crawford to Lieut. Col. R.L. Hoxie,
August 3, 1904.
2. HARP, microfilm reel 42, Hoxie to Brig. Gen. A. Mackenzie,
January 14, 1907.
60
the hospital over to the Public Health Department in 1920, but it was
transferred again in 1921, this time to the Veterans Bureau. In 1925 the
latter agency released all its rights and interests in the hospital back to
the War Department.
On March 3, 1925, Congress approved War Department
plans to restore Fort McHenry to its condition at the time of its
bombardment by the British in 1814. Only the original fort was to be
3
maintained as a memorial --subsequently th
battery and World War I hospital were razed
3
maintained as a memorial --subsequently the 1873 partly completed water
In a c. 1925 estimate of restoration costs for the fort only
one reference to the seawall's condition was found. No estimate of costs
to repair the seawall was developed along with those for the roads,
entrance, star fort, upper water battery and other features. This was
4
because "the seawall is in good condition and requires few repairs."
(See illustration 19 for photograph of 1925 conditions.) Another estimate
for restoration work at the fort, written in 1927, makes no mention of any
5
funds being required for repairing the seawall.
A much different picture emerges, however, from a report
written just three years later. In a September 13, 1930, estimate
covering proposed improvements to Fort McHenry's grounds no funds were
requested to repair the seawall. However, in an attached description of
work already completed by this date the seawall was mentioned:
The seawall was in very bad state of repairs, and has fallen in
many places, requiring rebuilding for several hundred feet.
3. HARP, NA, RG-94, AGO, Corres, FM, 1927-39, "Fort McHenry,
Maryland," compiled by L.W. Leisenring, O.Q.M.G., March 12, 1929.
4. "Estimated Cost of Restoration of Fort McHenry" [c. 1925],
pamphlet. Fort McHenry Vertical File, Maryland Collection, Enoch Pratt
Free Library, Baltimore, Maryland.
5. HARP, NA, RG-94, AGO, Corres, FM, 1927-39, B.F. Cheatham to
the Budget Officer for the War Department, February 11, 1927.
61
Difficulty was encountered in doing this work, as work could
only be carried on when the tide would permit. This work was
accomplished off of rafts and boats R The stones were large,
and had to be placed with a derrick.
No other information concerning these repairs was found.
2. National Park Service Ownership
The War Department transferred Fort McHenry to the
Department of the Interior, National Park Service on August 10, 1933.
During the Depression-era work was done at the fort under the aegis of
the Civil Works Administration and the Public Works Administration
(PWA). In an annual report for 1934 Gettysburg Superintendent James
R. McConaghie noted the damaged seawall had been repaired at a cost of
$12,000 in PWA funds. McConaghie added, "Recent storm damage created
the need for additional work ale
and 21 for details of 1933 work.)
the need for additional work along the sea wall." (See illustrations 20
Repairs occurred again in 1937. Beginning August 27 the
National Park Service, probably using Works Progress Administration
(WPA) labor, removed 70 feet of seawall which was damaged in a storm
the preceding spring. By September 3 a portion of the seawall had been
removed and relaying work was to begin within a week. Almost a month
later, on October 1, the superintendent reported very little progress had
been made in the seawall repairs because "we were not able to draw plans
for final approval until a portion of the wall had been removed to learn
the kind of foundation." Approval was not received until "the latter part
of the month," needed materials were ordered and received, and the
o
superintendent did not expect the work to be interrupted again.
6. HARP, Memorandum to the Adjutant General, Washington, D.C.,
September 13, 1930.
7. HARP, "Annual report for the Fort McHenry National Park, Year
Ending Sept. 30, 1934," James R. McConaghie.
8. HARP, "Superintendent's Narrative Monthly Report, August, 1937,"
September 3, 1937; HARP, "Superintendent's Narrative Monthly Report,
September 1937," October 1, 1937.
62
By the end of October the repairs were 90 percent
complete because "exceedingly favorable weather conditions" allowed the
work to progress to the point where only the coping stone was needed.
In November, however, "due to the great expense involved," the decision
was made not to use coping stone. The top of the seawall was finished
with concrete instead. At the end of the month one-half of the concrete
sections were poured and the job was 95 percent complete. Cold weather
threatened to delay the project in December, but moderate temperatures
prevailed long enough to get the concrete poured and the work finished.
g
The total cost was $2,247. (See illustration 22 for 1937 seawall repairs.)
Repointing the seawall began in spring 1938. Evidently
the work had been started at some point in time as an Emergency Relief
Appropriation project, but was now being done with WPA funds. During
May, 9,500 square feet were repointed. The work was finished by the
end of June, and the entire seawall, approximately 12,500 square feet,
10
was treated. (See illustration 23 for a photograph of 1938 pointing
work. Illustrations 24, 25, 26 detail other pre-1948 damages.)
Photographs in the park files reveal damage incurred in
August 1955 by hurricane "Connie." No further data about this damage
surfaced. (See illustrations 27 and 28.)
No further mention of the seawall was found until the year
1973. Even though the HARP project extended only until 1958, Fort
McHenry staff has kept records for every year to 1984. These National
Park Service records are not complete, but do yield some data on the
seawall's state of repair.
9. HARP, "Superintendent's Narrative Monthly Report for October
1937," November 4, 1937; HARP, "Superintendent's Narrative Monthly
Report for November 1937," December 7, 1937; HARP, "Superintendent's
Narrative Monthly Report for December 1937," January 7, 1938.
10. HARP, "Superintendent's Narrative Monthly Report for Month of May
1938," June 10, 1938; HARP, "Superintendent's Narrative Monthly Report
for June 1938," July 6, 1938.
63
The seawall's rehabilitation was considered in 1973. Van
Reuth and Weidner, Inc., was contracted to study the seawall damage and
make recommendations. Even though this study was not fully
implemented, the National Park Service was aware, at that point, of the
problems with the seawall.
Rehabilitation of the seawall occurred in 1975. The
National Park Service contracted the work to Martin G. Inbach, Inc., for
$167,687.50. March 3, 1975, was the first day of the contract and the
work consisted of placing stone riprap in front of the seawall, repointing,
resetting of displaced seawall stones, replacing missing seawall stone and
capstone, and reconstructing the seawall at several locations including
extending several pipes through the new stone riprap. (See illustration
29 for details of riprap work.) Topsoil was also replaced. The
contractor finished the work on June 3, 1975, at a final price of
1 1
$174,632.12 because of project overruns.
The cost and amounts of materials used on the project
were as follows
Item Contract Description
No. Quantity
1. 8LF 6-inch Cast iron Pipe
2. 10LF 6-inch Extra Stength Clay
3. 14,850 ft Plastic Filter cloth & steel
Anchor Pin
4. 2,580 Tons Rip Rap Stone
5. 13,355 Yd Topsoil, Seeding, Fertiliz-
ing and Mulching
6. Lump Sum Portland Cement Concrete
for Pipe Bedding & En-
casement L.S. 1,500.00 1,500.00
Quantity
Unit
Amount
to Date
Price
to Date
8 LF
10.00
80.00
18 LF
10.00
180.00
14,400
.30
4,320.00
2,902.55
27.50
79,820.12
6,000 Yd
.30
1,800.00
11. "Rehabilitation of Existing Seawall Fort McHenry National Monument
and Historic Shrine." Rehabilitate Seawall 106 File, Cul. Resource Mgt.
Div., Mid Atlantic Regional Office, National Park Service, Philadelphia,
Pennsylvania. A copy of the Van Reuth and Weidner, Inc. report of July
1973 has not been found. A reference to it is cited in the
"Rehabilitation" document. Fort McHenry Files (FOMC), Memorandum to
Contracting Officer, DSC-CA from District Project Supervisor Robert M.
Dinterman, August 5, 1975.
64
7.
5,350 Ft
8.
9,550 Ft
9.
46 Ft
Reconstruction of Stone
Walls 5,218 Ft 9.00 46,962.00
Repointed Masonry 9,800 Ft 3.20 31,360.00
Resetting Displaced or
Loose Wall Stone & Cap
Stone 90 Ft 21.00 1,890.00
10. 296 Ft. Replace Missing Wall stone
and Missing or Broken
Cap Stone ? 311 Ft 20.00 6,220.00
11. $1,000.00 Force Account Work
Tropical storm "David" inflicted major damage on the
seawall in September 1979. According to staff meeting records, "The
seawall is practically gone now, and the only real way of repairing it is
13
to tear down what is left, and rebuild the entire damaged seawall."
The storm washed out approximately 75 feet of seawall and lifted around
150 feet of coping stones from sections of the seawall. Photographs were
taken of the damage and temporary work was done to prevent further
deterioration from subsequent storms. In 1981 portions of the seawall
breached by the 1979 storm were
breaches were finally repaired in 1984.
14
breached by the 1979 storm were stabilized with sandbags. The
Because the records for the twentieth century are so
scarce it is difficult to determine how often repairs were required, how
extensive any damage was, or exactly where the seawall suffered damage.
It is probable that the cycle of damage and repair occurred as frequently
in the post-1900 years as it had since the first section of seawall was
built.
It is known that a change in philosophy of the wall's
design occurred between the nineteenth and twentieth centuries. The
12. Ibid.
13. FOMC, "Squad Meeting Minutes," September 13, 1979.
14. FOMC, "Squad Meeting Minutes," October 10, 1979; November 9,
1979, FOMC, "Resource Management Plan," National Park Service, United
States Department of the Interior, 1981, pp. 7, 10.
65
original seawall (1816-1897) construction was a dry laid wall topped with a
capstone. Repairs were in kind. The first evidence of design change is
in 1919 and later when the seawall was repaired with cement. In 1938
pointing work occurred, which changed the seawall's original
configuration. Perhaps this change in design philosophy happened in an
attempt to build a more water resistant wall. The desire to make the
seawall impervious to the wave action may have had an effect on drainage
of the fill behind the seawall.
The seawall has performed several functions. Foremost, it
prevented major erosion of Fort McHenry's grounds. Serious flooding
occurred only when sections of the seawall itself were destroyed in
storms. Secondly, the seawall protected the grounds, and in essence,
Fort McHenry's garrison, from unhealthy conditions generated by pollution
in Patapsco Bay. The seawall prevented decayed matter and other debris
from washing onto and possibly contaminating the grounds. There is also
evidence that privies placed on the seawall provided a type of sewage
system for some length of time. Wave action and high tides kept the
privies reasonably clean. Thirdly, the seawall probably served a function
in the social life of both the garrison and nearby neighbors. The one
reference to women using the seawall as a promenade is, unfortunately,
the only glimpse into the social use of the seawall. It probably served as
a meeting place, an observation deck for bay activities, or the perfect
promenade for an evening walk.
Even though the seawall did not exist when Fort McHenry
withstood the British bombardment in 1814, its subsequent protection
helped insure the fort's existence in the face of winds and waves. Fort
McHenry's seawall continues to stand on guard, like a dutiful but
overlooked soldier, ever in defense against the enemy.
66
CHRONOLOGY
April 13, 1794
May 14, 1814
September 6, 1816
November 6, 1816
November 15, 1816 -•
December 4, 1816
December 31 , 1817
January 9, 1818
June 25, 1818
December 15, 1818
December 21, 1818
April 20, 1819
September 15, 1819
September 21 , 1819
In a letter, Rivardi mentions the ground being
undermined by the water.
first mention of need for stone wall to secure the
lower or water battery.
preparations to build seawall
estimates of work needed, materials needed to
build seawall
water encroaching upon the point; part of which
had been washed away; a seawall would be
serviceable
work had commenced on seawall
1,460 ft of seawall completed; 3 feet foundation, 4
feet high, 4-6 feet thickness
request to "finish the wall. . . to secure the site
of Fort McHenry from the Effect of the tide,
which had for Years been gradually cutting away
the Bank at the Point upon which the Fort
stands. "
it is intended to complete the work begun by
Colonel Armistead
seawall sustained no damage in the storm of 4th
or 5th; proposal to commence coping in the spring
proposal to use granite from the Susquehannah
for the seawall coping
a glacias to be made to the edge of the seawall
the "wall" proposed by Hindman to extend from
the point where the wall "now building" was
commenced to the wharf, will not be undertaken
re: Armistead's request for "addition to
the WaH"--Smith does not believe it necessary
"There is no appearance of the water having
encroached upon the land on that side," a bank
forming 30 or 60 feet from the shore affords a
good protection against the violence of the surf.
67
June 1, 1829
June 8, 1830
June 9, 1830
May [?] 8, 1830
November 10, 1836
November 15, 1836
December 4, 1836
October 24, 1837
December 16, 1837
October 29, 1838
"a sufficient quantity of bricks can be obtained
from the old seawall in front of this work, and
from old Fort Covington without cost to the
Government" to build quarters
estimate of funds required for completing the
seawall; for continuing seawall from its
termination to the wharf, a distance of from 750
to 800 feet
fund request not sufficient to authorize the
construction of the seawall about the Fort
estimate of funds required to complete the seawall
work started on "that part of the Sea Wall which
it was necessary to complete, on the North East
part of the Point. . . will be finished by the
latter end of January next."
the estimated expense of building a seawall to the
new purchase is $10,000
the repairs of Fort McHenry reported as
completed by the Engineer Department
report of repairs; "The Sea Wall of Granite from
the Susquehannah , has been built to the extent
of 1300 ft exclusive of the Coping about 600 ft
remains to be finished on the North Side, & about
1000 ft on the South Side of the Peninsula in
which the Fort Stands."
repairs to be completed: "The Stone Wall about
1700 feet remains to be built, & the Coping Stone
laid on about 1200 feet."
commenced operations on August 1st, on the
seawall--the whole extent of this wall will be when
finished 2,111 feet--on this There were laid this
Season 830 feet of Coping Stone & 150 feet of the
wall built--950 feet have been completed. 1,550
feet of wall, four feet & an half high, have been
built exclusive of the foundations, which varies
from eighteen inches to two feet deep.
68
October 31, 1838
December 4, 1838
October 17, 1839
March 2, 1840
August 25, 1842
September 5, 1842
September 11, 1842
October 11, 1842
January 7, 1845
November 28, 1857
Thus leaving but 561 feet to be built, of which
the foundation has laid this summer except about
50 feet.
seawall is complete except 600 feet, the
foundation of which is laid — & then shall have
about 1000 ft of coping to put on which has been
delivered.
Report of the secretary of war: "The seawall is
now completed to a length of 950 feet, and 1,550
feet more are 4 1/2 feet high."
the remaining part of the seawall about 560 feet
has been finished
report that the seawall commenced October 1,
1836, and worked upon at different times until
August 1839 was finished; this wall commences at
the northeast point of the property and runs to
the boundary wall
a gale did "considerable injury" to the seawall
re: storm damage; prostrate portions of the wall
are to be relaid, any single stones recovered are
to be returned to their proper positions
estimate for repair of seawall--$165
repairs of the seawall were finished on the 28th
of last month
proposal to build a seawall "for the protection of
the Hospital position"
report that the seawall has never been completed;
it extends along the entire north side, round the
east corner, and on the South side to a short
distance west of the fort, but from this point to
the west wall separating the public ground from
private property there is nothing to prevent the
cutting away of the bank by the action of the
waves
69
February 9, 1858
March 16, 1858
November 5, 1862
April 28, 1870
February 28, 1874
May 31, 1875
September 18, 1876
October 1, 1876
October 4, 1876
November 1, 1876
December 1, 1876
July 1877
March 4, 1878
March 31, 1879
plan to extend seawall to the south
estimate to build seawall; 1,026 cub yds of dry
rubble, masonry @ $6 $6,156
Brewerton wants to know if appropriation has
been made to extend the seawall on the south side
inspection report: the sea is encroaching on the
work, an extra seawall is required to protect it
"On the southern side the line desired by the
U.S. to be established is in prolongation of the
existing Port Warden's line. . . [and] the line is
proposed to coincide with the seawall now
bounding the U.S. land."
formation of unhealthy beach along seawall by
wharf
storm damaged wharf; the seawall was washed
badly in places beyond the post traders
severe storm of [September] 17th-l8th shook up
badly the south face of the sea wall about the
site
appropriation of $1,000 allotted to repair storm
damage at Forts McHenry, Carroll, Washington, &
Foote
repairs to seawall damaged by storm have been
commenced
repairs to seawall have been continued through
the month
repairs as extensive as funds would allow were
made upon the wall during October and November
1876
proposal to extend reservation with fill and
construction of new outer seawall
the seawall has come to be in such a state as to
need very extensive repairs which should not be
longer deferred, $2,700 will be required
70
April 22, 1879 -- money not exceeding $3,000 could be very
advantageously expended on the seawall which is
in very bad condition
July 1, 1879 -- reparation of the seawall has been carried out
August 2, 1879 -- the reparation of the seawall; this has been
entirely completed with the setting of the new
coping, 10 inches thick by 4 feet wide, over the
50 ft of wall near sutler's store, left incomplete
June 30, 1879
October 20, 1879 -- Report of The Chief of Engineers, "The repairs
of the sea wall should be continued throughout
the remainder of its length. The wall has
been standing over 40 years. ... It would be
better, however, to build a new sea-wall on the
port warden's line fill in the area thus gained,
and thus extend the drill ground. The filling
could be readily and cheaply made by allowing
vessels coming to the port to drop their ballast
there. "
February 25, 1880 -- dropping off ballast to extend shoreline in front
of the seawall
June 1, 1880 -- "The contractors for building the new dry dock
have ceased dumping their excavated material on
the site between the existing seawall and the
prescribed Port warder's line."
July 1, 1880 -- a bulkhead of ballast was made by the U.S.
without expense; a seawall should be built along
the line of the temporary bulkheads; dumping of
ballast continues
July 1880 - May 1881 -- dumping of ballast in front of seawall continues
April 2, 1881 -- repairs to slopes and sea wall will be commenced
during the month
June 4, 1881 -- repairs to seawall, coping removed from where
area is being filled in and used to replace coping
in other places
71
July 12, 1881
November 29, 1881
May 23, 1883
August 12, 1884
January 29, 1885
May 1885
January 8, 1886
Feburary 2, 1886
June 10, 1888
October 2, 1888
October 4, 1888
October 9, 1888
November 8, 1888
March 23, 1889
April 16, 1889
June 17, 1889
June 22, 1889
July 19, 1889
July 1889
repairs behind seawall are "rough appearing"
no encroachment upon work by the sea
iron miners in the Patapsco are working too close
to the seawall
request to extend the seawall all the way around
another request to extend the seawall
another request to extend the seawall, being
"left unfinished at the end in rear of the
bakehouse, on the south side of the fort."
storm damaged seawall, that portion looking
toward Fort Carroil
severe gale did damage to the seawall; report
will be made as to extent and remedy of damage
landslide on the parapet has nearly thrown the
seawall into the water; the seawall needs repair in
several places
estimate to repair new water battery seawall
$2,750
proposal to sink wells to protect seawall
proposal to build new foundation and placement of
riprap in front of new wall
repair of seawall and adjacent parapet estimate
$2,975
widening of the channel results in damage to the
seawall, undermining of wall; riprap protection
estimate--$300
contractors repairing seawall ask for extension
storms on May 31 further damage seawall;
proposal to riprap in front of seawall until a
weight to balance the pressure at rear is gotten
new seawall has stopped moving
repairs to slopes and seawall are underway
another request to build seawall along the line of
the temporary bulkhead
72
August 20, 1889
August 26, 1889
August 29, 1889
October 16, 1889
October 28, 1889
November 30, 1889 -■
January 17, 1890
June 12, 1890
July 1890
October 6, 1892
October 11, 1892
April 12, 1893
August 30, 1893
September 7, 1893
October 20, 1893
"dangerous holes" appear in seawall near low
water line, which cannot be filled until the low
water season in autumn
examination of the seawall shows that the dry
underpinning needs replacement to prevent the
falling of considerable portions of the wall
estimate of $1,986 to repair water battery and
seawall
low bidder for repair of seawall was George F.
Nardin
proposal to remove upper half of seawall,
recently built, at end of water battery and
rebuild it in a straight line, "merely as a matter
of 'looks'"
small amount of repairs to seawall done by a
contractor
work at Fort McHenry is completed
proposal to build "wall" at foot of cliff to prevent
washing of cemetery
another request to build seawall along line of
temporary bulkhead
money allotted to replace riprap at foot of seawall
at westerly ena of exterior water battery
$25 available to repair riprap
work not yet started due to inclement weather,
but will be before end of June
storm on August 28 destroyed wharf, damaged
earthworks, and carried away extensive portions
of the seawall
the gale of August 28 "considerably injured" the
seawall; estimate of cost $2,500
a storm on October 13 further damaged seawall;
several sections measuring from 20-30 ft have
been opened; wall openings made in August storm
now measure 75 ft in length; tide rose 3 ft above
sea wall
73
November 1 , 1893
November 8, 1893
November 19, 1893
December 6, 1893
December 7, 1893
May 3, 1894
May 15, 1894
May 16, 1894
June 30, 1894
August 8, 1894
August 13, 1894
August 16, 1894
allotment of $2,000 made to repair seawall
heavy masonry will be needed for repairs of the
seawall
proposal to extend seawall on the north west
side; considerable ground had been washed away
and wall is needed on south side to keep water
from undermining the post cemetery which was
badly exposed by October 13 storm
to extend the seawall from its present terminus on
the western face of reservation, to the north
boundary wall, and to grade and fill ground in
rear to protect cemetery will require 2300 c. yds
dry stone, 9,000 ft 6" coping, 5,000 c. yds earth
and shell filling
serious injury was done to the seawall by the
gales of August and October; repairs have been
in progress with allotment of $2,000 but have
been suspended for the winter
notice inviting proposals for materials for repair
of seawall
George F. Nardin's proposal to furnish sand,
coping, stone is accepted
Maryland Lime & Cement Company proposal to
furnish cement is accepted
serious injury to seawall from gales of August
and October 1893; repairs have been in progress,
but are suspended for want of funds
the seawall from wharf to new section does not
require further repair at present
estimate for building seawall to protect cemetery
the existing seawall has been sufficiently
repaired for the present. The entire western
face of the property from termination of the old
seawall to northern boundary is entirely
unprotected; to build a seawall along the whole
front, 1,043 feet, would cost $12,900.
74
September 25, 1894
October 25, 1894
December 24, 1894
January 2, 1895
January 4, 1895
March 24, 1895
March 28, 1895
April 30, 1895
May 4, 1895
July 31, 1895
September 10, 1895
September 14, 1895 --
September 14, 1895 -
appropriation to protect site in front of cemetery
contract with George F. Nardin for building a
seawall
building seawall on southwest front of
reservation: contractor is hauling stone, has
foundation in, and 80 ft of wall 3 ft high
Nardin's contract time extended 20 days
work has been in progress since November 9 on
portion of seawall in rear of cemetery; this
seawall should be extended in both directions
when money can be had for the purchase
request that Nardin resume work on seawall on
April 1st
specification for remainder of seawall behind Fort
McHenry
Albert Weber's proposal for building seawall
accepted
contract with Albert Weber
contract extended from August 5, 1895, to
September 30, 1895, because of "extraordinary"
high tides
to put Fort McHenry into a respectable condition,
a seawall (similar to one on southwest front) on
the north front extending from a point near the
wharf to property line of Dry Dock G which will
include the present partial filling of shells and
earth is needed
the "filling in" behind new seawall will soon be
completed, and surfaces ready for being covered
with "street sweepings" or equally good material
for growing grass for protection of slopes
estimate for constructing seawall (similar to that
on southwest front) on the north front, extending
from a point near the wharf to such point on the
line of property of the Dry Dock Company will
include the present partial filling of shells and
stone
75
September 20, 1895
September 28, 1895
November 14, 1895
July 1, 1896
August 8, 1896
August 26, 1896
October 8, 1896
December 13, 1896
December 19, 1896
March 23, 1897
September 30, 1897
August 3, 1904
January 14, 1907
completion on 19th of work under contract with
Albert Weber
building a portion of the seawall in rear of the
cemetery 227 feet long was finished May 22, 1895
(Nardin )
estimate to build seawall on north front
allotment of $13,750 to be applied to construction
of a seawall and embankment on the water front
of the Fort McHenry, Md . , reservation
firm of Nardin and Anderson was lowest bid for
the seawall
contract with Nardin and Anderson for building
seawall
proposal of Nardin's to refill back of old seawall
accepted
contractors broke sewer pipe near where it joined
the original one; the original one is broken where
they took up the stones from the old wall, which
has caused the flooding of that part of the post
contract of Nardin extended from January 1 to
April 1, 1897
contract of Nardin and Anderson extended from
April 1, 1897 to April 30, 1897
the seawall on the east side of the reservation
was completed; this completes a seawall so much
needed for protection from the action of the sea;
work done by contract which was commenced
August 28, 1896, completed April 23, 1897
( Nardin )
earth behind the seawall is caving in in several
places, notably along the southeastern face, due
to the action of the waves through the bottom of
the wall
value of all permanent improvements to the
seawall $45,000
76
September 30, 1934
September 3, 1937
November 4, 1937
December 7, 1937
January 7, 1938
June 10, 1938
July 6, 1938
July 1973
November 14, 1974
August 5, 1975
September 13, 1979
Public Works Administration: repair of damaged
seawall; allotment $12,000, 100 percent completed
removal of 70 ft of seawall damaged in storm last
spring
seawall laid to a point, now ready for coping
stone job 90 percent complete
coping stone not used on top of seawall, being
finished with concrete
job is finished; final construction consisted of
pouring the concrete cup
Works Progress Administration: 9,500 sq. ft. of
seawall repointed
repointing completed for 12,500 sq ft
Van Reuth and Weidner, Inc., prepare report on
the rehabilitation of the seawall
bidding documents: rehabilitation of seawall by
National Park Service
contract requirements completed for seawall
rehabilitation; started March 3, 1975, completed
May 29, 1975; riprap placed along seawall
seawall sustained major damage from hurricane
"David"; seawall practically gone and only way to
repair is to take down what is left and rebuild
the entire damaged seawall
77
RECOMMENDATIONS FOR FURTHER RESEARCH
The HARP historians labored under time restraints but they gathered
a voluminous amount of material concerning Fort McHenry. Gaps in the
data do exist, however, and further labor intensive research on the
seawall could be conducted at the National Archives in the War
Department records for these missing years which may or may not result
in additional construction related data.
The Fort McHenry files covering the National Park Service years are
also not complete. Research in the National Park Service records in the
National Archives could possibly reveal further data on twentieth century
seawall damage and repair.
Further research in the HARP files on any topic would be greatly
aided if the bound materials were indexed. All of the HARP microfilm
reels should be duplicated, indexed, and added to the bound materials.
Archeological investigations behind the seawall could possibly answer
construction questions and identify the type and quantity of fill placed
behind the seawall. The fill may be related to the fort's hydrological
drainage problems.
79
LLUSTRATIONS
81
m
O
00
C
(U
X
u
o
LL
C
o
82
>
"3-
00
c
0)
I
u
s_
o
LL
a
E
</)
CO
<
I
CVJ
z
o
-
—
3
84
CD
00
c
0)
I
o
o
a.
X)
c
c
10
3
O
0.
h
E
m
c
o
86
J I
i
87
01
00
>
c
CD
I
u
10
w
re
u
o
+->
W
I
z
o
88
89
Illustration 5. Fort McHenry 1834
90
«*«••
*.«.
•It...
Itvl
an ■.
•
*•/-
• •.»». .
**•%-
-%.». 1.
.... •
IH*. »
»•..'■%'
■>k
•r
■**%
*m»
M>V*B <a
» It*.
• *.«.
• tV
.— .
...
,,
■*• •> »«... i... fc «_
lf««M ».
*• •» .
»-• It. .
*»...
« c
».«i.
SI
'I-
*- \»
*..^.S.
V
.*- ir
....... ».^.J
■y -■«
Jf lb
>
•^ ' i ' r
*•*!•
W*P
t. fed
auk
-J
N
v*
l l y T L "£/J. = Jti 8 "Xi-|f-^
P'HWH »- oV> .. «x JU <M ».
J
x
* b
91
CD
rn
00
c
CD
X
U
c
g
— -
3
92
93
o
>
c
1)
I
U
o
LL
o
i-
Q)
4->
■M
DQ
(U
4->
^ J
u
n
'_
o
CO
'^
o
Hi
♦-"
X
LU
c
o
X
—
3
94
CD
Q
S_
0)
+->
4->
1!
CD
-O
£_
11
CO
i_
o
'$_
dl
4-1
X
UJ
o
CO
00
c
o
-
L.
Ifl
3
96
97
Illustration 9. 1878 map of proposed boundary change
98
99
Illustration 10. 1870 map showing encroachment of high waterline
and location of proposed seawall
100
Prowers A
k~A."*'.»y JTitjy. Jr**A -
"1
W.V
*3
vSj&fi.
Jem it Y"" U f ' ■+*/*>-
t r r » r t Jirr r-i t: 1 i it ' ■ r .f up;
Jfy^^Y**
Ft M c /tf>nry r^V
Illustration 11. 1870 seawall proposal, Detail
102
4+ArJ6rftZ*
&ynr/w/ *JV«^* *//&&
J«&J£
103
00
00
00
c
(D
I
u
o
N
C
o
to
D
104
105
Ilustration 13. Sketch to show proposed change of wharf
at Fort McHenry 1893
106
"N
- Ar- —
giccUe, J isicA. Co lSv fe&?-
fa ySktetfyl/fy-
107
CM
c
c
v
X
u
o
LL
c
o
+J
ro
L.
—
1/1
108
109
Illustration 15. 1910 postcard showing seawal
John H. McGarry Collection
llustration 16. 1920 postcard showing seawal
John H. McGarry Collection
110
Fort McHenry, Baltimore, Md.
— i ■» i * i * • ■ - ~ -*_ —■■ ■ ■
Panorama View, Historic Fort McHenry. Baltimore, Md.
C7>
ft)
CD
in
c
>
03
C
I
u
TvJ
o
z
~r6
■M
a
i/i
o
I
(_
c
aj
13
112
!
113
Illustration 18. Seawall 1919, Detail
1 14
Examples of Present GoNHTitn of wall
Rip Roy
Note - Drill li' hole fb. dowel «{fer
Slone hae bc-eri re%«t
Stones >o be lo>d in rich
oemeni mortar
Section of wall as proposed to Be Rebuilt
Scole - I*- Z-o"
I" DoWels
1
•— I
115
Illustration 19. Aerial view,
General Hospital, No. 2, c,
1925
116
117
00
00
en
oo
CM
■M
D
O)
D
<
E
'-
O
TJ
0)
O)
03
E
(TJ
TJ
U
(TJ
<3J
■a
(TJ
$
05
0)
l/>
I
to
'(TJ
Q.
(1)
a:
o
CM
c
c
Ifl
118
119
V
2i
-
u
s_
<T3
5
(1)
W
,-0
CM
C
o
3
120
V
*i
n
121
r-
-n
(T3
C
o
4-1
in
s_
ro
O.
"(5
c
o
0)
Z
>
C
<u
I
U
L.
O
C
O
to
3
122
ui O
i —
n
I
7
u
-^
.1
'
Q.
-0/
S3
i
9 *
a"
5
uj
UJ
UJ
123
Ilustration 23. Photograph of 1938 pointing on seawall
124
£f**e
f « . •
^■'tf^
125
Illustration 24. Photograph of pre-1948 seawall damage
126
127
Illustration 25. Photograph of pre-1948 seawall damage
128
129
Illustration 26. Photograph of pre-1948 seawall damage
130
t
131
'c
c
o
u
c
03
u
i_
D
_c
E
o
E
03
■o
03
03
Q3
(/)
LT)
1/3
3
D)
D
<
Q.
03
s_
O)
o
o
Q.
C
o
CO
132
133
'c
c
o
u
CD
c
ro
u
's_
s_
3
JZ
E
o
4-
<U
D)
03
E
03
T3
<D
m
D
O)
D
<
x:
a
CD
S_
O)
o
o
Q.
00
C\J
c
o
I/]
3
134
\
^d
I
%
1 1
135
l/>
o
a.
o
a
(TJ
OJ
I/)
0)
-C
+->
1-
a
c
o
+J
u
<D
o
t_
a
a
s_
a
en
03
•M
CO
Q
CD
c\j
c
o
'■*->
•-
w
3
136
M»:"' —
« »5 »■* —Sir
i = : 3 ,• ; i ; s g
1=1
« ■ I i
Si's =?;
.lit 5|||2§| 3
;- <
GO
137
APPENDICES
A. Building a Sea=Wall, Contract, August 1896
B. Daily Journal of Operations on Fort McHenry, 1
896
139
No
1 'IV l I < ••- \ I « • I
Oh J E N F D AUGUST 7.1890
Building a Sea=Wall
Milking Repairs
l^url Mol U'urv,
140
PWC)lM>SAIv»
Building Sea Wail and making Repairs ai Fori ttonj.
/ 1 ' '/, • i -, 1 1, i .*-.//•
\ X< . I X I I K < M I Iv I .
1 1, i ' ' i i ) i , , ■ i ■< . \). I . . 1 1 1 ' 1 1 i
I s .' / / ,
Proposals for huildhu.' a Sen-Wnll and makiin.' repair- it I "it M- Ibnry liaitiinore.
Mil., will In' received until iimm • >! \in.-u-! 7. I"'.*'!, and llii'ti opened,
h'ur iiifiiriiiiitinii . > | ■ i • ' > '"
1 *l ■'. I 1 \\< C I !.\ i XS.
/
SPECIFICATIONS.
GKNERAI, INSTRUCTIONS Foil IllDDKIts.
1. The attention of bidden bi especially invited to the acts* of Congrats approved
February "if!, 1MH5, and February 23, 1HK7, an printed In vol. 23. page 332, and vol. 24, page
414, Uuited States Statute* at Large, which prohibit the importation of foreigner* and
nliena, under c""WWTt or agre ement, to perforin labor iu the Uuited States or Territories or
the rMstrletortl BlPVV
2. 1 'reference HW^rn* to article* or aatadaftl tt lu m mt** ptv J wMtm, maARIonfi
of quality and price being eqnal, including in the price of foreign article- the duty thereon.
3. Maps of the localities may be seen at this office, didders, or their authorized
flkrents, are expected to visit the place and to make their own estimates of (he facilities
and difficulties attending the execution of the work, including tin- uncertainty ■ <{ vveatln r
and all other contingencies.
I, No proposal will b>> considered unless accompanied by a L'uaranly in manner and
form as directed in these instructions.
V All bids and guaranties must he made in triplicate upon printed torm* to be ob-
tained at this office.
•'<. The guaranty attached to each copy of the bid must be -iu'iied by two responsible
guarantors, to he certified as good and sufficient guarantors !>y a -ludire or clerk of I'uited
Stati-i < 'ourt. I'nited States I »ist ri«-t Attorney. I nited Stales Commissioner, or ludire >r
clerk of a State court of record, with the seal of ^aid court attached.
7. A firm as *uch will not be accepted as -im-ty. nor a partner for a copartner <>r firm
of which he is a member, stockholders wh<> an 1 not .iffirer- of a corporation may be
accepted as sureties tor :iich corporation. Miretie* must be citizens uf the I'uited States.
k. Kach signature to guaranties and bond* shall have affixed to it an adhesive seal.
All siiniatures to proposals, iruflrauties, contracts and l»»nd« should be written out in full.
141
•J
•ad each nlgaatsre to guaranties, contract* and bond* should be attested by at least one
witness, and, when practicable, by a separate witness to each signature.
9. Each iruarantor will justify in the mm of two thousand dollar*. The liability of
the guarantor* and bidder Is determined by the act nf March :t. IMM.t. •_»_> Statute*, 1*7, chap.
12o, and ia eip r e a eed In the guaranty attached to the bid.
10. A proposal by a j>er*on who affixes to hi* signature the word " president," " :*ecre-
tary," " agent," or other designation, without disclosing hi* principal, is the proposal of
the Individual. That by a corporation should be signed with the name of the corporation,
followed by the signature of the president, secretary or other person authorized to bind it
in the matter, who should file evidence of his authority to do so. That by a flrui should
be signed with the Arm name, either by a member thereof or by its accent, giving the name-
of all members of the Arm.
11. The place of residence of every bidder, and |«>*t-offlce address, with county ami
State, must be given after his signature.
12. All prices must be written as well as expressed in figures.
13. One copy each of the advertisement, the instructions for bidders, and the specifi-
cations, all of which can be obtained at thin office on application by mail or in |»er*on, must
be securely attached to each copy of the proposal n> 1 b* c».i»«idered as comprising a part
of it.
14. Proposals must be prepared without assistance from any i>erson employed in or
belonging to the military service of the I'nited State* or employed under this office.
15. No bidder will be luformed, directly or indirectly, of the name of any person in-
tending to bid or not to bid, or to whom information in respect to proposals may have been
given.
16. Any one signing the proposal a* the agent of another or others must file with it
legal evidence of hi* authority to do so.
17. All blank apace* in the proposal and bond must be filled In. and no change shall
be made In the phraseology of the proposal, or addition to the items mentioned therein.
Any conditions, limitations, or proviso* attached to proposals will be liable to render them
informal, and cause their rejection.
18. Alteration* by erasure or interlineation must be explained or noted in the propo-
sal over the signature of the bidder.
19. If a bidder wishes to withdraw his proposal he may do so before the time fixed
for the opening, without prejudice to himself, by communicating his purpose in writing to
the officer who hold* it, and, when reached, it shall be handed to him or his authorized
agent, unread.
20. Reasonable grounds for supposing that any bidder is interested iu more than one
bid for the same item will cause the rejection of all bids iu which he is interested.
21. No bids received after the time set for opening of pro|>oaals will be considered.
22 The proposals and guaranties must be placed in a sealed envelope marked pro-
posal for re)«ir* at Fort McHenry." and Inclosed in another sealed envelope addressed to
Col. Peter C. Halns, Corps of Kngineers, 9 Pleasant street, Baltimore, Md. The outer
envelope must be ?<o indorsed as to indicate twfore being opened the particular work for
which the bid Is made.
23. The I'nited States reserves the right to reject any aod all bids, and to waive any
informality In the bid- received : also to disregard the bid of any falling bidder or con-
tractor known as such to the Enyineer IVpartment.
142
3
44. The bidder to whom award 1* made will be required lit enter Into written contract
with the I'nlted States, with good and approved security, In as amount of two thousand
dollar* within ten ( K> days after being notified of the acceptance of his pMporal.
2fl. The contract whirh the bidder and guarantors promise to enter Into shall be. hi lt<
general provisions, In the form adopted and In me by the Engineer Department or the
Army, blank fornix of whirh ra.ii be inspected at this office, and will be furnished if desired
to |»rtles projtoslng to put in bids. Parties making bids are to lie understood a- accepting
the terms and rendition* rontaiue«l In uneh form of rontrart.
•-Hi. The sureties ure to make and siilisrrilie affidavits of justification on the l*rk of
the l«»nd to the contract, and they uiust Jointly Justify in double the amount of the penalty.
27. Midden* »n- invited to lie present at the opening of the bids*.
CENEKAL CONDITIONS.
'2*. A ropy of thl* advertisement, specification* and instructions will lie attached to
the contract, and fonu a part of it.
2J». The contractor should, within ten day*, fnun the award of the contract, furnish- .
the office with the po-t-oiflce address to whi<-h communications should be sent.
*'. Transfer* of contract*, or of interests in contracts, are prohibited by law.
.SI. The contractor will not lie allowed to take advantage of any error or omission in
these specifications, as full instructions will always be given should such ermr or omission
be discovered.
32. The decision of the Engineer Officer in charge as to quality and quantity shall
be final.
33. It is understood and agreed that the quantities given are approximate only, ant!
it must be understood that no claim shall be made against the I Hi ted States on account ot
any excess or deficiency, absolute or relative, in the same. Bidders are expected to exam
ine the drawings, and are invited to make the estimate of quantities for themselves.
34. Payments will be made monthly. A percentage of ten i !<•< |>er centum will be
retained from each payment until the completion of the contract.
3A. Should the time for the completion of the contract be extended, all expenses for
imqiection and superintendence durln - the period of the extension, the same to be deter-
mined by the Engineer Officer in charge, shall be deducted from payments due or t.
become doe to the contractor; Provided, hmoerrr, that if the party of the first part shall.
in the exercise of his discretion, because of freshet.-, ice, or other force or violence of the
elements, allow the contractor additional time in writing as provided for in the form •■!
contract, there shall be no deduction for the expenses for inspection and superintendence
for such additional time so allowed; Provided, fuflhtt , that nothing in these specifica-
tions shall affect the power of the party of the first part to annul the contract as provide*'
for in the form of contract adopted and in use by the Engineer iWqartuient of the Army.
SPECIAL HESCUIPTIOX.
36. It is understood and agreed that the contractor must carry on the work iu sucl
order of precedence as the Engineer may direct, and that the Engineer shall have th~
right at any time to make such changes in the pNns as he may deem necessary, and
further, that the contractor shall have or make no claim atrainst the I'nited States on
account thereof.
• I". GENERALLY.— it is proiiosed to build, a* shown on drawing exhibited iu the
I'nited States Engineer Office, !• I'leasaut street. Maltimore. a protection or sea-wall on tit.-
north front of the Reservation at Port Mcllenry and make repairs hereafter described
The wall is to be four feet thick at base, three feet at top. and will be carried to the same
height as the wall, of which it will forma prolongation, viz.. five and nineteen hundredth-
(5.1&I feet above mean low water to top of coping. It will be founded on a bed of riprap
stone, the top -urface to be at the level of mean low water.
143
.». MASONRY.— The wall will be constructed of sound gneiss or granite, well-
shaped stone*, of not lens than Ij Inches rise //•■««/ <t ft/ic* (except for leveling up>. well-
bonded, and having through headers for every nix square feet of fare ar»*a. stone In l»e
laid dry to within ulmut two feet of the lower fare of tin' riming, beyond which it will he
t»edded In rement mortar ntme a* for raping. The heavier -«tone will be laid in the I >wer
courses tnd the whole will form what I- known a* flr-t-c ln_n* nibble maxunr)'. The ireneral
character of the wall will 1m- similar to that recently constructed (Hi the south •* i < 1«* of the
Reservation.
.19. COPING — The coping will be six Inches thick and three feet wide, in Hot lew
than fonr foot lengths, hammer-drensed on top face and close Jointed at right angles to face
of wall. It will be set In a heavy !**d of hydraul.c cement, to be approved by the Kngl-
neer in charge, mixed with twice its volume of clean, sharp sand.
-M>. KII'-KAP.— Will Include rip-rap stone, the removal of three wrecks at an.. neat_-
the line of the proponed wall ; the excavation of nil trenches, and the entire preparation
of the bed to receive the wall.
41. KIP-RAP STOJfK.- The riprap will bo of sound hard stone ringing from about
one hundred and fifty pounds in weight to sms.ll spalls of two or three pounds.
The bed will be laid nine feet wide at the top, in no ca«e less than two feet deep, and
sloping off to the ground at u natural slope of about one on one. When the ground is not
suSciently low to permit the full depth of two feet !>ein>,' laid, a trench of rectangular
section will be excavated at the contractor'* own cost, to enable the required two feet to
be laid. The top surface of the bed will be properly leveled to receive the wall.
42. WRECKS.— There are three wreck* near the line of the proposed wall which will
l>e entirely removed to the level of the ground and from the vicinity by the contractor.
tt. FILLING.— Will include oyster shell filling, earth filling, the planting r.f treets
the sowing of gram seed, and the repair and continuation of all drain- through the pro-
poned wall, wlione discharge is interfered with.
44. OYSTER SHELLS -Throughout Its entire length the spare immediately back of
the wall is to be filled with good clean oyster shells to about three feet above -mean low
water, and extending back at the top for a distance of about three feet from the wall,
thence sloping off at the natural nlope. The fill of oyster shells may at the option of the
engineer be extended to other part* of the area to be filled.
\r>. EARTH FILLING. —The space back of the sea-wall, an shown on drawings
exhibited in thin office, or such part thereof an the engineer may designate, will be filled
to the height of about five feet above mean low water in rear, and sloped off to about four
feet above mean low water at the wall ; with good clean earth to be well settled in place, to
the satlnfactlon of the engineer. The top surface of this fill for the depth <>f about one foot
must be of good rich soil, and sown with a good grade of grass need by the contractor.
Where the wall in built on dry ground, the earth in front of the wall will be excavated to
the level of mean low water, and this excavated material used for filling in behind.
This material will be paid for as •• Fill."
46. TREES.— About thirty yonag poplar trees or such other kind as the engineer may
approve will be planted by the contractor along the pro|K>ned sea-wall front, to the satis-
faction of the engineer.
47. DRAINS. — The contractor will be required to extend through the proponed wall
the drain* or sewers whose discharge had been interfered with. The pipe must be of the
beet quality double-strength vitrified culvert pipe of the name diameter an the drain- to
which they are joined. They will be properly jointed in the wall with iron pipe, and the
whole to be properly caulked with hydraulic cement and laid to the satisfaction of the
engineer. Any broken parts of the existlnir drains will be repaired by the contractor.
Near the west end of the wall an opening about four feet wide and extending down to
about the level of mean low water will be left as a drain until the earth fill back of the
wall shall have progre s sed to the satisfaction of the engineer, when he will authorize its
pro|H»r closing. *o that It will, when closed, be of the same character as the adjac.-nt wall.
144
4H. FINALLY.— The whole work is to be completed In strong, neat and workmanlike
manner, and in accordance with the evident Intent and meaning of thl- specification.
49. BIDDERS TO VISIT TIIK SITK. Et«\— It is ex|iected that each i>erson bidding
will visit the site of the proposed! wall and the I'nlted States engineer's office, and ascer-
tain the nature and general character of the work to »*• i»erformed. and all information
necessary to enable him to make an intelligent proposal.
50. The contractor will l>« allowed, without cost, to use such of the stone "f the old
-ea-wall a- may i>e suitable in buildiiur the n«*w out*.
MEASUREMENT OF WtiKK.
51. MASONRY.- Masonry will l»e measured by the cubic content- of the wall in
place, built in accordance with these specification*. Masonry will not include coping.
COPINf j. — Coping will be measured in place by the 1 inear foot.
RIP-RAP.— Rip-Rap will be measured by eros-s section taken l>efore and after it i*
de|>osited. No allowance will be made for settlement.
FILL. — Fill will either be measured in carts wluw cubic contents have been previ-
ously determined under the direction of the engineer, or. if brought in scows, by the cubic
contents of the space that it occupies on the scow.
"»2. RIDS. — ilids must state in letters and figures :
( 1 ) Price per cubic yard for masonry in place.
1 2) Price per linear foot for coping in place.
(3) Price per cubic yard for rip nip in place.
1 4) Price per cubic yard for oyster shell filling in place.
to) Price per cubic yard for earth filling' in place.
Mil Time of commencement and completion of work.
•*>3. The contractor will be required at his own expense, before the final payment for
the work, to repair and put in same order and condition as before he commences operations,
all wharves, roads and parts of the ground or reservation used or occupied by him duriiur
the progress of the work
54. QUANTITIES. — The estimated quantities i which may l>e in increased or dimin-
ished) are:
2,400 cubic yards of rip rap.
•'W;l cubic yards of masonry.
•»55 linear feet of coping.
•>6(> cubic yards of oyster shell filling.
:*.(»,(N>0 cubic yards of earth filling.
•'»•"». The engineer, at bis discretion, may require the dismissal of any incompetent,
insubordinate or disorderly person employed, who shall not again be connected with the
work.
145
li
PROPOSAL.
. 1896.
To Col. PETER C. HAINS.
Corps of Engineers U S A..
9 Pleasant Street. Baltimore Md
Sn: —
In accordance with your atlverti.««eiii!*iit of luly 17. is!»i», invitinc propo.-al> for l»uildiii_-
sea-wall, etc., at I'ort Mcllenry, und subject to all the condition* and requirement.- thereof,
and of your specification- of same date, copies of both of which are hereto attached, and >■•
lar a> they relate t • tlii- proposal are made a ]>art of it. I or we \ iropiwe u> do the work ;tt
the follow ■inir prices :
I.' ip-rap in |daee, for |»er '*ubii a yard.
Masonry in |dace. lor [>»*r »-u 1 ii «• yard.
( opiiiLT in pla« .for per linear loot.
< >y*ter >hell filling in place, for per cubic yard.
Karth fllliu* in place, for per cubic yard.
I .or u e will commence on
I <>r we will complete t he work by
I for we) make this proposal with n full knowledge n| the work. and. if the pn>|«»-.il
- accepted, will, after receiviut: writ 'en notice of such acceptance, enter into contra'-:
within ten days thereafter with (fond and sufficient sureties tor Ihe faithful | crforiuntnv
thereof.
Wrrxi —I > : fSn.s \n i:r. |
|Ai.|.i:k-.|
j>H.N.\TI i:i..]
146
GUARANTEE.
We
of .in the Count) of
and State of . and , of
. in the County of nnd State of
. hereby undertake tli.it if the bid of
herewith accompanying, dated I"*' 1 "',
for work nt Fort Mel I en ry, Md.
be accepted as to any or all of the items of supplies, material,., and services proposed to
be furnished thereby, or as to any portion of the same, within sixty days from the date of
the opening of proposals therefor, the said bidder
will, within ten days after notice of such acceptance, enter into a contract witli the proper
officer of the I'uitcd States to furnish such articles of supplies and materials and such
services of those proposed to l>e furni-hed by said bid as shall be accepted, at the price-
offered by said bid nnd in accordance with the terms and conditions of the advertisement
iuvitiiur said proposals, and will jrive bond with jrood and sufficient sureties for the faith-
ful and proper fulfillment of such contract. And we bind ourselves, our heirs, executors,
and administrators, jointly and severally, to pay to the United States, in case the said bidder
shall fail to enter into such contract or irive such liond within ten days after said notice
of acceptance, the difference in money between the amount of the bid of said bidder
on the articles or services so accepted and the amount for which the pro|»er officer of the
United States may contract with another i»arty to furnish said article-* and services, if the
latter amount be in excess of the former.
(^iven under our hands and seal- this day <>f
eighteen hundred ami ninety-
I it presence of —
as to
a- to
Alli\ ;i.l!n»l\i -i .1.
State ok
Count;/ of ^
I . <>ne of the guarantors named in the
foregoing guaranty, do swear that 1 am pecuniarily worth the sum of two thousand
dollars over and above all my debts and liabilities.
Subscribed and -worn to before ine this day of
. !*«!■ . at
147
State ok |
Ml :
County »f S
I, mi? of the guarantor* named Id tbe
foregoing guaranty, do rwctr that 1 aw pecuniarily worth the Mini of two thousand
Julian over and above all my debt* and liabilities
Subscribed and sworn to before me this rlny of
, l«i» , at
I, , do hereby certify that
and . the guarantor above named,
j>erwonally known to me, and tliat, to the l>e*t of my knowledge and InMief, is
i*MMiniarily worth, over and above all his debts and liabilities, tbe sum stated In tlie
accompanying affidavit subscribed by him.
1, do hereby rertify that
, tn* guarantor above atantL, is personally knows to
we, and that tbe bent of my knowledge and belief, ke I* pecuniarily worth, over and above
all bis debts and liabilities, tbe mini stated in the accompanying affidavit subscribed
by him.
1 Tbe <«ib to be taken before a notary public or Mime otber officer havlnc n**er*l Minority t" ••Imiairtcl
oath*. If tbe onVer ha* an official »«-»] it mun be »ft1\<-.|, otlteraix tin- pro|>er i 1 1 i li ■! i a* to bit official char-
acter mual lie fnraiibed
1 Thl* certlltcate to be by a Jodfe or clerk of a lnile-1 State* ronrt. a I'nlted States <1l»tnot attorili > . I nitrcl
State* cofaniUaluner. or a incite or clerk of a Htati court of n-cor.l wltb tbe veal of aaiJ coart attarhttf li tin'
sn. m\ can make tbe eaftlflcate a* to lioth i-orette*. It will not be nerv*aary to fill out tbe next form below .
1 He or each.
148
ynz/»7 T**>V ~>*V*2> tyyS* J£P~~<> irrrryy// Y^^V
-rtAjyiy^ -™™ (A? -w^y (*■? ~y "-«£>
5 ■? /
4 4
149
*-cts,J£,/V* Joo
<><•*
S?*p<r~4> ^AjZ&c*^ tf-jo '
MjLJLt q^tti ***** )
7Ds?-r2E-
*f<?
3J-.
<?<y. .yyr/rzf+s.
yp^M/r^TS
ay •
*7
3/ ^
/
i
y
j
<£*£** cjl f72V.i&
- ■ »» , t . u r-
/ 74 27
^ / ?• o
.2 3 frT?
5 r^xe
/ 7 ?/*/
I&, G 3 6. I*
to^
/
1,1 *\*
: 6 * «
/
J -3- -*.. / O
150
nil
■ ■ ■ ■ ■ -ji
(&£ ooi<Uc ' <£» &S >*/* >* >£fc^ *^
ififi&m
fat*. 0?*9*4£0f.
&uAu££fA'4/p } /M« *•**< £*.
o'-t/6
/&.Y/*'
if. & 2s £ctyfi>
<2,0-t-Jj£o
*/.?*'
4*."'
-
a/.*" 7
J.Z. *fO t
So'+fo
*v,3*'
3,f.</o«
**.«-"'
IJ./O *
/*e'f /**
if.t"'
>f.4T •
§
<fl.t"'
3 Z.</ t
W0+/A0
99' 7$-°'
3*./ "
rs:$r a '
V/3 f
r?./r a '
V3. J *
£*»'«•?*•
64 -V"'
V 77 *
-*»o #*«•/<
7*7*'
4n*.a *
?*•*'[
<T37© •
U-s"
J^^.^" •
4TA *» *
jlo'*3w
6/-0"'
4T,/*
3#*+3G*
6-f.<tf°
4//.0*
«&ir"'
33.3 s
ya/.f
> — ^^
151
152
153
ANNOTATED BIBLIOGRAPHY
HISTORICAL AND ARCH EOLOGI CAL RESEARCH PROJECT (HARP)
MATERIALS
Manuscript
Record Group-77, Office of the Chief of Engineers, Letters Sent,
1812-1872, Letters Received, Orderly Books, Annual Reports to the
Secretary of War, (including Report of the Chief of Engineers), "SPLOE,"
Buell's Collection, Engineer Historical Papers, 1800-1819, Reports, "FB,"
"BDO," Land Papers [?].
Record Group-92, Office of the Quartermaster General, Consolidated
Correspondence File.
Record Group-94, Adjutant General's Office, Correspondence, FM,
1927-1937.
Record Group-107, Office of the Chief of Engineers, "SC FT-MC,"
1811-1837; Office of the Secretary of War, Letters Received.
Record Group-159, Office of the Inspector General, Letters Received,
1866-1889.
Microfilm
Reel 16, National Archives, Records of the War Department, Office of the
Chief of Engineers, Selected Correspondence Relating to Fort McHenry,
Maryland, 1811-1837.
Reel 24, National Archives, Records of the War Department, Office of the
Chief of Engineers, Selected pages from Letters to Officers of Engineers,
July 4, 1812 - February 20, 1869.
Reel 35, National Archives, Records of the War Department, Office of the
Chief of Engineers, Fortifications Branch, Letters Received, 1878-1886.
Reel 42, National Archives, Records of the War Department, Office of the
Chief of Engineers, Selected Documents from Fortifications, Miscellaneous
Reports, Baltimore District Office, 1884-1906.
National Archives, Records of the War Department, Office of the
Chief of Engineers, Selected Documents from Fortifications,
Miscellaneous Reports, Baltimore District Office.
Reel 45, National Archives, Records of the War Department, Office of the
Adjutant General, Medical History, Post of Fort McHenry.
155
Reel 46, National Archives, Records of the War Department, Office of the
Chief of Engineers, Selected Letters received relating to Fort McHenry,
Maryland 1852-1876.
Reel 49, National Archives, Records of the War Department, Office of the
Chief of Engineers, 1847-1906, General Correspondence, Letters Sent,
July 8, 1863 - May 24, 1867.
Reel 53, National Archives, Records of the War Department, Office of the
Chief of Engineers, Miscellaneous Letters Received, May 1877 - May 1905.
Reel 56, National Archives, Records of the War Department, Office of the
Chief of Engineers, District Engineer Office, Baltimore, Maryland,
1847-1906, Fort McHenry Correspondence, Letters Sent, December 15,
1884 - June 30, 1894 (no. 2).
National Archives, Records of the War Department, Office of the
Chief of Engineers, Letters Sent, Baltimore District Office, Fort
McHenry Correspondence, December 22, 1869 - December 2, 1881,
December 15, 1884 - February 28, 1898.
The HARP materials provided almost all of the data for this historic
structure report. The War Department, Office of the Chief of Engineers
records provided not only details of correspondence but of construction
as well. The microfilm proved especially useful, because a lot of the
material had not been copied and placed into the HARP binders. As
stated in the introduction, there are limitations to the use of the HARP
materials because of limited cross referencing and indexing, and
undecipherable citations or text.
Fort McHenry Files 1933-1984
These files, arranged chronologically in binders alongside the HARP
binders, provided data on the National Park Service's management of the
fort and seawall.
OTHER MATERIALS
Article
"Plan of Fort McHenry." Maryland Historical Magazine , 8 (1913), pp.
288-290.
This article provided Major John Jacob Ulrich Rivardi's 1794 description of
water damage to Whetstone Point.
156
Book
Kanarek, Harold. The Mid-Atlantic Engineers : A History of the
Baltimore District , U.S . Army Corps of Engineers , 1774-1974 .
Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office [1979?].
This text provided data on Fort McHenry's early construction history.
Reports
U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service, "Historic
Structure Report, Fort McHenry Historical and Architectural Data, Fort
McHenry National Monument and Historic Shrine, Maryland." by Ervin N.
Thompson and Robert D. Newcomb, Denver, October, 1974.
The Thompson text is a history of Fort McHenry's structures and
fortifications. It provided the context within which to place the seawall
history.
U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service, "Archeological
Investigations at Fort McHenry National Monument and Historic Shrine
1978, 1980" Vol. I by Bryan L. Aivazian and Louise Schmidlap, Vol. II by
William Stokinger, Patricia Rubertone, and Lawrence E. Babits, Denver,
July 1982.
U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service, "Historic
Structures Report, Part I, Fort McHenry National Monument and Historic
Shrine, Historical Data Section." by George J. Svejda, Washington, D.C.,
June 1969.
Both the Aivazian, et. al. and Svejda reports provided background
information about Fort McHenry's history and placement of structures.
Pamphlet
"Estimated Cost of Restoration of Fort McHenry" [c. 1925], Fort McHenry
Vertical File, Maryland Collection, Enoch Pratt Free Library, Baltimore,
Maryland .
This pamphlet provided data on the physical state of the seawall, c. 1925.
157
PERSONS CONSULTED DURING RESEARCH
S. Sydney Bradford, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
Susan Long, Historical Architect, National Park Service, Falls Church,
Virginia
John H. McGarry, Baltimore, Maryland
William Stokinger, Boston, Massachusetts
Erwin N. Thompson, Lakewood, Colorado
REPOSITORIES VISITED DURING RESEARCH
Baltimore, Maryland
Enoch Pratt Free Library
Maryland Collection
Vertical Files
Fort McHenry National Monument and Historic Shrine
Fort McHenry Files
Historical and Archeological Research Project (HARP) Files
Map Files
Photograph Files
Maryland Historical Society
Prints and Photographs
Vertical Files
Lakewood, Colorado
Rocky Mountain Regional Office Library
159
HISTORIC STRUCTURE REPORT
Architectural Data
Seawall
FORT MCHENRY NATIONAL MONUMENT AND HISTORIC SHRINE
Maryland
Prepared by
Susan Long
161
III. EXISTING CONDITIONS
A. Historic Appearance
Historically the seawall was a dry laid wall constructed of
granite and sandstone. Rubble, rock-faced, or dressed stone was used
for the base of the wall and topped with a capstone. The seawall retains
its historic configuration and appearance, although there have been some
changes to the wall. The wall has been pointed in some areas and riprap
has been placed in front of parts of the wall.
B . Existing Conditions
The seawall lies on the perimeter of Fort McHenry National
Monument and Historic Shrine and is approximately 3,770 feet long. The
seawall has been totally recorded photographically, and existing condition
documents (33 sheets) are available from the Technical Information
Center, Denver Service Center. (Dwgs. 346/25004). (Please refer to
these documents for the location of station points noted in this
narrative.) As already discussed in the history section of this report,
the wall was constructed in phases beginning in 1816 and ending in 1897.
It should be noted as documented on the drawings that the wall was built
of several types and finishes of stone.
C . Present Conditions
In keeping with the objectives of the task directive to record
the existing conditions of the wall and make recommendations for its
rehabilitation, the causes of failure of the wall will be discussed. A wide
range of experts (see individuals and offices consulted) on seawalls with
varied backgrounds and expertise have been consulted by this office. All
of these experts have agreed on the causes of the deterioration of the
seawall .
The seawall is a dry laid gravity wall. The stones are laid in
an interlocking pattern and topped with a large capstone which functions
to hold the small interlocking stones below it in place. Thus, the wall is
designed to function as a massive unit which, when intact, is able to
resist the extreme force of waves hitting it.
163
As already mentioned, the location of the seawall makes it
subject to severe wave action from both passing boat traffic and storms.
In a storm the waves reach a maximum height of 5-1/2 feet. It should be
noted that this is higher than the seawall. As the waves hit and scour
the seawall, water passes through the joints between the stones and flush
soil from behind the wall causing voids behind the wall and the collapse
of fill and grass into the voids. This effect is most obvious from Station
10 + 06 through Station 18 + 47.00 (see photographs 1 and 2 and
figure 1). Once the confining soil behind the wall is lost the capstone
becomes unstable and wave action is able to lift the capstone. The
capstones are displaced and eventually toppled into the harbor (see
photograph 3 and figure 2). With the capstone removed the wall no
longer acts as a massive unit and begins to unravel (see photograph 3).
Although this is happening along the entire length of the seawall it is
most obvious from Station 10 + 00.00 through Station 18 + 48.77 because
there is no riprap to break the impact of the waves and this section of
wall is subject to extreme wave action.
From Station 18 + 48.77 to Station 22 + 84.09 the capstones are
displaced and the lower third of the wall protrudes 6 inches to 1 foot 6
inches beyond the upper portion of the wall (see photographs 5, 6,
and 7). The condition of the wall at this point is unknown. Further
testing should be performed to determine the profile of the wall in this
section. The protrusion of the lower stones could be the historic
configuration of the wall (see figure 3); however, it is more probable that
it is the result of the force of water and plastic soil pushing against the
wall. Thus the stones at the base of the wall are being pushed out of
place, making the wall structurally unstable (see figure 4). (For
amendment to this report, see Appendix A, the archeological
investigations and comments.)
From Station 22 + 4.09 to Station 32 + 3.74 the wall is not
riprapped. Although fill is still being leached from behind the wall,
riprap protects the wall from harsh wave action, thus the wall is stable.
164
From Station 32 + 07.74 to Station 47 + 55.13 the wall is not
riprapped and the stones below mean low water are displaced and missing.
However, this section of wall is not subject to extreme wave action and
thus remains stable.
PROPOSED WORK PROGRAM
A . Alternative "A" - No treatment
If the seawall is not repaired in the next few years entire
sections of the seawall will be lost, resulting in the need for complete
reconstruction of the wall in order to protect the point from erosion.
B . Alternative "B" - Pump grout the wall
Pump grouting would stop water from penetrating the wall and
pulling out the fill.
It is not the recommended alternative because the seawall has
stood as a dry laid wall for over a hundred years and pump grouting the
wall would change the functioning of the entire wall system and could
cause the wall to become structurally unstable. Additionally, it would
also change the historic appearance of the wall and the cost is prohibitive
($700 a linear foot).
C. Alternative "C" - Place riprap in front of the wall
This alternative changes the historic appearance of the wall and
does not actually address the causes of deterioration of the seawall.
Riprap also carries the hidden maintenance cost of cleaning debris from
the riprap.
D. Alternative "D" - Preferred alternative - Place filter fabric and
gravel behind wall; reset capstones and pin in place
This alternative has many advantages. The work would not
change the historic or function of the wall system or the appearance. It
directly addresses the reason for the walls deterioration and the most
165
economical method of repairing the wall. Placing filter fabric and gravel
behind the wall will stop the leaching of soil from behind the wall. Using
epoxy and pinning the capstones in place will tie the wall together
causing it to act as a massive unit as historically designed and prevent
waves from moving the capstones. This is the method of stabilization
recommended by the Corps of Engineers, Baltimore office, after physically
inspecting the seawall (see figure 5).
E . Multiphase Work Program
In the event funding presents a problem the rehabilitation work
on the seawall has been divided into three phases. The three phases
citing work to be done are as follows:
1. Phase 2 " Al1 rehabilitation work from Station 10 + 00 through 18
+ 48.77. The work in this length of wall consists of placing filter fabric
and gravel behind the wall, resetting displaced existing stones or
replacing missing and broken stones and placing stainless steel pins to tie
the capstones and the block wall together.
2. Phase 2 - All rehabilitation work from Station 18 + 48.77 through
Station 22 + 84.09. As previously discussed in the existing conditions
section of this historic structure report, the condition of the seawall is
unknown in this section. Upon further investigation, if it is found that
the lower portion of the wall has been pushed out, the wall will have to
be dismantled and rebuilt before filter fabric and gravel are placed
behind the wall and the capstones are reset and pinned in place. (For
amendment to this report, see Appendix A, the archeological
investigations and comments.)
3. Phase 3 - All rehabilitation work from Station 32 + 03.74
through 38 + 59.35. All missing stones shall be replaced using existing
or replacement stones. All broken capstones shall be replaced and
grouted and epoxied in place.
166
F. Impact Analysis
Fort McHenry is listed on the National Register of Historic
Places and, therefore, implementation of the recommendations in this
report will require compliance with Section 106 of the National Historic
Preservation Act.
The work proposed for the seawall at Fort McHenry would help
preserve the historic scene at Fort McHenry and the Baltimore Harbor.
It would retard deterioration of the seawall, and preserve the historic
fabric and site.
Applying the criteria of effect, 36 CFR Part 800. 3[a], it is
determined that the work would have an effect on the structure.
However, applying the criteria of adverse effect, 36 CFR Part 800. 3[b],
it is determined that the effect would not be adverse:
1. The proposed work would not result in the destruction of
significant features of the property. The existing fabric would not be
significantly changed or destroyed by stabilization of the structure.
2. The proposed work would not isolate the structure from the
surrounding environment or alter the surrounding environment. Rather,
it would preserve the historic scene.
3. The proposed work would not introduce visual, audible, or
atmospheric elements that are out of character with the property or alter
its setting.
4. The proposed work would not result in the transfer, sale,
deterioration, or destruction of federally-owned property.
This action may be excepted from compliance with Executive
Orders 11988, "Floodplain Management," and 11990, "Protection of
Wetlands" by applying the criteria in Section 5B3 of the NPS Floodplain
Management and Wetland Protection Guidelines. This section identifies as
167
excepted actions those which are functionally dependent upon water, and
for which there is no practicable alternative site outside the floodplain.
Compliance with the National Environmental Protection Act was
completed with the May 19, 1982 signing of the Finding of No Significant
Impact (FONSI) on the Fort McHenry Resources Management Plan, which
addressed the environmental effects of repair and rehabilitation of the
seawall .
168
o
CM 00 O O v-
r~- r- ^ en oo
LO
lo
t- O O
00 O LO
o o
^J- CO
m
CO
CM
00
CM
en
CM
00
O
o
to 00 P0 CNJ CD
co co o c\j "3-
00
00
CM
CO O CO
en o en
t— LO lO
r- CM
r- en
LD en
CO
o
<*
CM
O
CM
CM
CM
LD
oo
to
oo
00
CM
cn co r- o c\j
oo
T ~
CM CM LO
CM
<=t 00
CM
CM
LD
CM
CO
CO
—
LD
O
CM
LO
00
CM
■w-
tfl-
•
CD
c
u
o
jD
'+->
a
(T3
4-
c
c
c
L.
o
a
4-
OJ
T5
r^-
c
CD
CD
r-
£
CO
>
0)
JO.
+
X
o
a
QJ
"O
00
D
■o
O
c
-C
0j
to
o
Ifl
CO
o
QJ
0)
+
C
o
o
c
o
Ifl
CD
o
c
a
CD
U
—
o
<
4J
—
CD
4->
1_
L0
■o
00
CX)
CD
"fD
3
$
CD
CD
Z
c
CD
,—
cO
"0
cd
T5
s_
C
CD
CD
E
a
CD
CD
cu
—
i_
QJ
0)
1
>
s
fU
>
J_
CO
s_
O)
a)
c
■M
CI)
"O
CD
£
X
u
c
CD
CO
2
J=
cd
■M
o
CD
O
u
co
u_
cu
s_
jz
1
Qj
h
fJ
T—
i^
<d
4-J
CD
co
03
CD
U
o
£
CD
z
a.
CL
3
ol
UJ
LL >" LL >■ LL
_i u en u _i
>
en
LL
o en co o o
oo co cm ^r o
00
* —
CD O O
lo o en
CO
00
O 00 00 00
CM
CM O CM
00 o
rr
c
11
o
o
CM
00 O O LT)
O O O CO
LO LO
LL > > LL
>
LL
JU U _i
LO
_l "-
r^ o lo o r^
LO
^
r^ lo oo lo r-
00
r- U o
CO
oo r^ oo r- oo
LO
oo o •
rr oo <cr cd t
CO
<3" O '3"
00 CO CM CO CO
LO
oo oo lo
r- *T r-
en
U
u
r-
eo
CM
LO
CO
CM
>-
u
LL
_l
LL
u
CM
CM
LO o o
rf O ID
O
00
O
O
LO
t- lo r^
r- cd
CM
o
' —
CO
LO
00
00
h>
CD
C
i
r
OJ
L.
c
o
a;
c
CD
U1
OJ
■M
ID
8°
CD _Q
^cd
QJ C
c
4-J
!_
c
o
V->
CD
>
CD
U
0)
c
5
>
TO
u
X
CD
~C
C
4-
u
mpaction
psoil and
OJ
Cb
(0
4-1
O
u
L.
OJ
ping ston
tting (sto
CD
G!
C
1/1
/
1_
L
QJ
c
re
"3
OJ
CO
10
10
QJ
X
<TJ
(0
CO
o o
—
° S_
O Q)
O
(_
UJ
z
I
DQOh
LX.
OUcO
S Q
c c
o3 o
u *->
L. fD
QJ ^Z
o
h
c
Qj
o .
L. 4->
OJ c
a o
u
LO
a
C
03
169
I/)
CO CM O UO CD
f n i- i/3 cn
^r cm oo
^ CD 00
OO UO
CM CM
O
00
uo
uo
CM
o
o
o
U
i- in O) <J) in
O M M^30
r^- ^ co o oo
^ OO OO
uo cm r-
oinui
UO uo
uo t
oo cx»
00
uo
CD
oo
o
o
*3-
OO
oo
uo
CM
uo
00
CM
—
«* «* «* **
•^ «*. •«.
«*.
«*
■h
■k
-V
<*.
03
o
<3" CD C\J r-
UO
<- r- IT)
CM
I —
oo
00
00
oo
CM
oo
CM
«*
*«■
r "
*~
(/>
OO <D
O C
• o
^ -M
co f
a
+ 03
u
CM
CM —
l '£
Q
h-
r^
oo aJ
^ c
o
+ ■*-"
i/)
00
r- T5
0)
co x:
c 1/3
O D
'■P h
03 O
+->
01 T>
C
" 03
= u
S *
CO
s_
S- CD
— +->
03 —
at
oj
or: "O
T3
I 03
01
u
03
>"0
a
5- C
C 03
c
OJ
I ^
u £
c
^ §
a
•t->
Fort
caps
~
c
itj
>«
co
X
^J £
o
+3
a
CD *_>
CD
10 0)
01 l/>
T3
.C OJ
c
3
>
c
(TJ
o_ a: 03
u_ . u_ >■ u_
LL LL
_i > CO U _l
> -J U
U
CO
O CD O O
o o
co oo cm ^r o
00 uo uo
. CO . . .
t —
O • 00 00
• OO CM
r- OO r-
CM O
o
o
uo
o
uo
o o
o uo
cm r»»
CD
> LL >
U CO u
CO U
CM CO CM CO CM
OO CM OO CM OO
OO CM uo
cd oo r-
UO 1— T- T- UO
00 "3" r- ^r oo
^ r- co r~- ^r
rfvir
oo uo r-
CO 00 uo
u u
co o
oo oo
^r cm
uo
co
oo
U
o
oo
CM
LL LL
U U
o o
oo uo
uo r^
o co
CM 00
CD
CM
uo
CO
CM
o
o
o
CM
CM
c
c
o
-
0)
CD
c
5
c
>
•V
c
o
T3
c
■>->
c
C
a
o
CD
C
o
u
ra
o
1/1
u
1 —
X
^
<T3
>
'13
c
113
u
a
03
T3
(J
L
a)
C7;
c
0)
c
a>
C
o
u
5
c
u
E
Q
U1
a
—J
4-1
*->
If)
K
rtj
•~0
ra
o
O
~
o
u
en
c
._ 03
X £
1/3
C
C c
V o
U -M
L- 03
°- c
IICQUh llUcO
o
h
c
c
Li
CLi
0)
u
o
a
L
—
L
r
a
C
ai
01
Ll
o
a
u
o
.JO
,n
170
m
o
o
CO
o
CM
,—
CO
CD
00
O
o
CO
00
o
o
r>>
o
O
O
I s *
CD
00
ID
en
r--
o
o
o
LD
oo
<*
<3"
o
CD
00
T —
eg
r^
CM
U
t —
00
CD
LD
m
CM
m
00
r-«
<3-
o
* —
^1"
r-
o
*—
I —
o
"t
o
o
CD
r-*
1 —
LD
00
—
■».
«.
«*
*.
**
V.
»».
K
V.
«•,
•^
IB
h«
oo
r--
(0
CD
00
CO
a>
o
LD
CD
r*.
CM
+J
CD
r*.
1 —
CD
LD
00
r-«
00
O
cd
00
CD
o
CM
\-
■tfl-
to-
•>
»>
1/1
CD
£
O
4-1
<tf
r ^-
00
01
+
C
CM
CM
i
E
i_
CD
■M
cd
Q.
■D
C0
00
o
O
<s-
+
co
CO
"a
CD
"a
<d
oj
c
>
CD
a
CU
■M
C
ai
o
c
E
o
4->
4-1
<U
+J
in
4->
ro
OJ
LO
0)
4J
CD
'
in
CD
a>
to
^—
>
CD
c
>
S
L
ro
CD
CD
s_
CO
to
d)
CO
£
CD
l_
4-J
U
L,
CD
ro
3
C
a
LL
CD
4-4
a:
O
C
i
(5
<*-
>
5
I
L.
i
C
X)
>
0)
i_
I
'5
CO
o
n
10
2
gj
CD
s_
u
4->
CD
o
LL
"a
c
ID
C
CO
I
CD
JZ
CM
— •
o
c
ro
OJ
TO
O
10
E
to
L.
ro
a
-C
a
'5
cr|
UJ
c
a Q (d
> > U_
UU00
>
u
LD
CD O
• 00
CD CO
o
o
^3"
en
o
ID
o
o
LD
00
ro
«*
<3"
>
U
>
u
LD
CD
CD
ID
00
CD
00
CD
-
CM
oo
O
LD
CM
>
u
LD
00
LL
CO
CD
LD
>
u
00
CD
o
co
LD
CD CD
cd r^
CM
Li-
en
o
CD
> >
u u
>
00 CD U- ,
00 00 (/) (J
TCOOCD
ID CO O CD
oo r-- cd r-»
t- r- *»
CD
U
a
CD
i_
C
n
CD
s_
TJ
C
T3
0)
c
4J
0)
u
CD
00
CD
00
a.
ro 0)j=
s_ C co
OJ
C <D
ro co
l/l
CD OJ CD
_j c
CD O
S- >
cd ro
ul
X3 a
V
* ^i — = >
oacDO^^-aO-^
EtcdE>uoEu
<D£<DxOOJ01
CC (/) Q UJ ~$. CU OQ
- o, T3 c °- CD
c
cu
u
c
OJ
a
c
CD
u
i_
CD
o <->
m
(D O c ~ C h
+-. ,g ro 0- .= Q.
El
o
h-
LD "O
ro ±; -m ^- c
^Z C ro
CO r- CO O CO
D •- D U D O
171
o o
o o
o o
o o
o
o
o
CD
00
CD
CD
o o
00 o
O i-
^ r-
r-* r-
CD
en
o
00
T —
UO
Si s
•k
*.
*»
«*
v
ro •^r
iD
00
CM
uo
CM
CD
00
00
00
CM
LD
■fcA-
u u
U
LD
00
CD
ID
+
CO
00
1
r-
oo
o
+
ro
00
L0
c
o
X
*4->
to
5
— >
to
in
L0
1
C
~TO
T5
5
CD
O
>
10
—
L.
TO
TO
a
~
0!
—
DC
I
i
10
CD
>-
c
L.
o
C
4-"
0)
m
I
(J
5
c
L0
4-1
LO
o E
en
QJ
U
CD
TO
lO
TO
a
r
OJ
a
q:
en
c
TO
3
o-
o o
o uo
O CM
CD O
CD
00
O
O
LD
LL LL
TO
U U
L
CD
O O
O ID
TO
o r>»
cd CD
LL LL
u u
LD
CD
OO
U
o
00
OvJ
U U
CO o o o
r- ^ O ID
cm ^r
L0
to
"O
O) c
C TO O)
o > -
L0 <J
QJ
c
QJ 0J QJ
Z Z L0
c
c
c
QJ
u
c
U
u
u
!_
L
S_
a)
a
C
O
I
a
0)
a
a
o
~->
LO
Lf)
•a
c~
-
< —
4J
• —
c
—
c
m
LO
c
L0
o
1/1
3
J
u
r
o
o _ _ _
172
ILLUSTRATIONS
173
Figure 1: Soil flushed out from behind wall and resulting void
174
175
Figure 2: Capstone displaced and toppled into harbor
176
...
• ■ " • .0 ...'
177
Figure 3: Section of wall if protrusion is the historic configuration
178
J
179
Figure 4: Lower third of wall displaced due to force
created by water and plastic soil behind wall
180
■ « . I'.. I
181
Figure 5: Rehabilitated wall section (typ.)
182
EPOXY MORTAR
FILTER FABRIC —
CRUSHED STONE —
- GROUT
183
Photograph 1: Station 11 + 97.05 looking south capstones
displaced due to loss of soil
Photograph 2: Detail of void behind wall
184
•If
W
185
Photograph 3: Displaced capstone toppled into harbor
186
9
m
~<<*i *
^S
187
Photograph 4: Station 13 + 17.05 - Station 13 + 84.05
Unraveled section of wall
188
« ..—
189
Photograph 5: Station 18 + 00. Protruding lower third of wall
190
191
Photograph 6: Station 16 + 39.04 looking south
Protruding lower third of wall
92
193
Photograph 7: Station 18 + 00 looking south
Protruding lower third of wall
194
195
APPENDIX A: ARCHEOLOGICAL INVESTIGATIONS AND COMMENTS
This amendment to the report is a result of the archeological
investigations conducted at the seawalls of Fort McHenry. Based on these
findings, the seawall is sound of structural stability and not in imminent
danger of collapse. The 'step' as viewed in three photographs (photos
5-7) can be viewed as either a cultural feature of the wall or an evidence
of wall repair that took place above the 'step'. No repairs as described
for Phase II (dismantling and rebuilding) are needed for this section of
the seawalls.
197
United States Department of the Interior
DENVER SERVICE CENTER - EASTERN TEAM
NATIONAL PARK SERVICE
WASHINGTON, DC. 2024O
H3015(DSC-TEA)
FOMC-149
Jut, 02 m
Memorandum
To:
From:
Reference:
Subject:
Chief, Falls Church Branch, Eastern Team, DSC
Chief, Applied Archeology Center, DSC-TEA
Fort McHenry National Monument and Historic Shrine,
Package No. 149; Rehabilitate 4,000 foot Historic
Seawall, Historic Structure Report
Distribution of Management Report
Enclosed for your information and records is a copy of the Management
Report for the referenced project. Additional copies are being sent to
other DSC-TEA professionals concerned with the project. The purpose of
this report is simply to document existing structural conditions for
construction drawings and to provide information about the resources
located along the seawall. Although further review of this report is not
required or expected at this time, Ellen Seidel, NPS Staff Archeologist,
would welcome any comments you may have.
(SI3N1DJ
^
Douglas C. Comer
Enclosure
cc:
DSC-^TEA-Mr .
IDSC-TEA-Mr.
Raithel
Cellar
DSC-TEA-Mr .
DSC-TEA-Mr.
DSC-EAF-Mr .
DSC-EAF-Mr.
Witmer
LaFleur
Fields
Donald
198
ARCHEOLOGICAL MANAGEMENT REPORT
FORT MCHENRY NATIONAL MONUMENT AND HISTORIC SHRINE
Spring, 1986, Season
1. Package Identification
Fort McHenry National Monument and Historic Shrine, Package No. 149;
Rehabilitate 4,000 foot Historic Seawall, Historic Structure Report.
2. Construction Location and Description
Construction locations are identified by station number (Figure 1), as
listed below.
Sta. No. Proposed Construction
10+00-22+34.09 Excavate trench behind seawall
1 to 6 feet wide to base of wall,
line trench with filter cloth, backfill
with stone
Fill voids in wall
Pin stones in place
22+84.09-32+03.74 No work
32+03.74-38+59.35 Fill voids in wall
38+59. 35-park boundary No work
3. Dates of Archeological Investigations
March 24-26, April 7-May 2, 1986: Fieldwork
May 5-May 23, 1986: Labwork, report preparation
4. Personnel
Project Archeologist, NPS: Ellen Seidel
Field Director, CPSUA: Paula Zitzler
Crew, CPSUA: William Batterman, Kim Becker, Heather Bouslog,
Karen Orrence
5. Purpose and Location of Archeological Investigations
Excavation units were located to obtain both archeological and
architectural data, specifically, 1) to determine if the existing shape of
199
the seawall is as originally constructed/repaired or if the wall is
presently being deformed by natural causes, and 2) to determine the
presence/absence of significant archeological deposits adjacent to the
seawall.
Prior to initiating fieldwork, an examination of a sample of historic maps
suggested that several historic features may be present along the seawall,
as summarized below. The test excavations were located to test both
architectural and non-architectural areas along the impacted portions of
the seawall.
Sta. No.*
Historic Data
Archeological Investigation
10+00
11+97
15+25
21+08
22+03
22+84
27+44
32+03
Wharf (1834)
Wharf (1888)
Water battery,
north end (1888)
None (architectural
test)
None (architectural
test)
Water Battery,
south end (1888)
Unidentified
structure (1888)
Unidentified
structure (1888);
rifle range
(1912)
Not tested due to presence of
subsurface utilities
Excavation units 2, 3
Excavation units 4, 5
Backhoe trench 1
Excavation unit 1
Not tested
No work area
Excavation units 6, 7
♦Approximate
6. Results and Interpretations
A. Architectural details of the seawall were uncovered in each test, as
illustrated in Figure 2. These details indicate that the wall is not
eroding but was built and repaired in the shape illustrated.
B. The location of a historically documented structure was verified in
Excavation Units 6 and 7 (Figure 3) . The structure was noted but not
identified on the 1888 map, but in 1912 it was identified as the target
area of the rifle range.
200
C. NO SIGNIFICANT RESOURCES were discovered in Excavation Units 1-5, and
Backhoe Trench 1.
D. Fill was observed at all tested locations.
E. Base of the seawall was not reached in any excavation because of safety
considerations and water table.
7. Evaluation of Discovered Resources
The IN SITU FEATURES UNCOVERED AT STATION 32+03 ARE SIGNIFICANT because
they are documented historically and are the only tested location on the
seawall where relatively undisturbed deposits exist.
NO SIGNIFICANT ARCHEOL0GICAL RESOURCES WERE IDENTIFIED IN EXCAVATION UNITS
1 THROUGH 5 AND BACKHOE TRENCH 1. It is obvious that these areas were
extensively filled, and, while some of this filling was apparently done
historically, the disturbed nature of these deposits makes them
insignificant resources.
8. Impact of Project on Resources
Construction Phases I and II will destroy any resources within 6 feet of
the seawall. Disturbance will be to the base of the wall, but
archeological test excavations to date have been relatively shallow, only
3-4 feet below the top of the wall. Therefore, FINAL EVALUATION OF THE
IMPACT CAN ONLY BE FULLY ASSESSED AFTER MACHINE TESTING (tentatively
scheduled for September 1986) , which will penetrate to the full depth of
the base of the seawall.
Construction Phase III will not impact the significant resources discovered
near station number 32+03, as long as work is confined to the exposed face
of the seawall. If Phase III involves any excavation behind the seawall,
the significant resources will be adversely impacted.
9. Recommendat ions
A. Clearance is not recommended for Phase I and II construction until the
results of machine-testing in September 1986 are known.
B. Qualified clearance is recommended for Phase III construction, even
though significant resources are present. As long as construction
activities are limited to the exposed face of the seawall, the significant
resources will not be adversely impacted. However, if construction will
involve excavation behind the seawall, or if heavy equipment will be
operating at ground surface near the significant resources, these resources
will be adversely impacted and an appropriate data recovery program must be
implemented.
C. Machine-testing in September should be conducted as often as possible
during low tide, to insure that maximum depth can be reached behind the
seawall without inundation.
201
Prepared by:
Paula Zitzler Ellen Seidel
CPSUA NPS
202
ST* 10-00
2«W si* ii*»7wO»
.SI* U-3B03
ST* l»-«8 77
ST* 42-SS 13
SI* 22-*« OS
N
o
si* ?7-43 s;
SI* 2B-S7 BO
SI* 30 10 60
St* 3203 74
/ through 7- Efcovation units
8- Backhoe Trench I
Figure I. Location of archeological tests, Fort McHenry National Monument
and Historic Shrine, Package No. 14 9. April 1986
203
1
J
\\ ^ v
APPROX. STA. NO. I It 97
r
\ V V ^ ~
APPROX. STA. NO. 15+25
Riprop
o
Cement
I 2 feet
TW^
APPROX. STA. NO. 22+03
KEY
Mort ar
Base of
excavation
APPROX. STA. NO. 32-03
Figure 2. Seawall cross-sections, Fort McHenry Notional Monument
and Historic Shrine, Package 149. May 1986
204
o
5:
d
<
CO
*a
c
c>
^
c
«i
K
6
3
•e
C
c
5
(0
D
V,
C
o
c
a
o
c
J»
Pi
X
*
<o
.*
<o
CO
kl
5
0>
c
Si
v.
-K
o
c
0.
k
5
?ns
INDIVIDUALS AND OFFICES CONSULTED
*U. S. Army Corps of Engineers, Baltimore District
Clinton Anuszewski, Civil Engineer
P.O. Box 1715
Baltimore, MD 21203
301-962-4315
*U . S. Army Corps of Engineers, Baltimore District
William Baldwin, Jr., Engineering Geologist
P.O. Box 1715
Baltimore, MD 21203
301-962-4451
U. S. Army Corps of Engineers
Peter Hart, Engineering Geologist
20 Massachusetts Avenue, N. W.
Washington, D. C. 20314
202-272-0207
U. S. Army Corps of Engineers
George Hubfer, Civil Engineer
P.O. Box 1715
Baltimore, MD 21203
301-962-2002
U. S. Army Corps of Engineers
John Lockwood, Civil Engineer
20 Massachusetts Avenue, N. W.
Washington, D. C. 20314
202-272-0228
U. S. G. Construction
Edward Mokelligett, Project Manager
Billford, S. C.
803-524-1672
U. S. Army Corps of Engineers
Dale Munger, Soil Engineer
20 Massachusetts Avenue, N. W.
Washington, D. C. 20314
202-272-0207
* If further contacts need to be made with the U. S. Army Corps of
Engineers, Clinton Anuszewski and William Baldwin are most knowledgeable
about the seawall at Fort McHenry. They conducted a physical
investigation of the site and were involved in the stabilization of the
section of the Fort McHenry seawall that is the property of the Coast
Guard. They were also involved in the stabilization of the seawall at Fort
McNair which is a similar historic structure.
207
Department of Inspection in Hydrology License Administration
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
William Trautween, Engineering Geologist
825 North Capitol Street, N. E.
Washington, D. C. 20426
Rummell Klepper & Kahl Consulting Engineers
Edward Zigler, Civil Engineer
1035 North Calvert Street
Baltimore, MD 21202
REFERENCES CONSULTED
U. S. Army Corps of Engineers. Low Cost Shore Protection .
U. S. Army Corps of Engineers. Low Cost Shore Protection
Guide for Engineers and Contractors .
U. S. Army Corps of Engineers. Low Cost Shore Protection
Guide for Local Government Officials
U. S. Army Corps of Engineers. Low Cost Shore Protection
Property Owner's Guide
208
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFMl E I 186 0-676070/40002
As the nation's principal conservation agency, the Department of the
Interior has basic responsibilities to protect and conserve our land and
water, energy and minerals, fish and wildlife, parks and recreation
areas, and to ensure the wise use of all these resources. The
department also has major responsibility for American Indian reservation
communities and for people who live in island territories under U.S.
administration .
Publication services were provided by the graphics staff of the Denver
Service Center. NPS D20, August 1986
TVNews
OpenLibrary